https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445763 MP HC held that IT authorities wrongly invoked Section 132(3) instead of Section 132(1) for prohibiting removal of liquor bottles from petitioner's residence. Court ruled that liquor constitutes "valuable article" under common parlance interpretation of taxing statutes, and authorities failed to demonstrate impossibility/impracticability justifying Section 132(3) application. The prohibition order was deemed colourable exercise of power since circumstances warranted Section 132(1) search and seizure provisions. Order set aside with costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on Revenue. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445763 MP HC held that IT authorities wrongly invoked Section 132(3) instead of Section 132(1) for prohibiting removal of liquor bottles from petitioner's residence. Court ruled that liquor constitutes "valuable article" under common parlance interpretation of taxing statutes, and authorities failed to demonstrate impossibility/impracticability justifying Section 132(3) application. The prohibition order was deemed colourable exercise of power since circumstances warranted Section 132(1) search and seizure provisions. Order set aside with costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445763