<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (6) TMI 227 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462995</link>
    <description>HC quashed the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate concerning the custody and release of Rs. 3,15,000 seized from respondent No. 3, holding those orders void and without jurisdiction. The Court found that the Magistrate failed to consider the statutory provisions under Section 132-A of the Income Tax Act, which vested custody of the seized money with the Income Tax Department upon issuance of a valid warrant of authorisation. The police officer and Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to release the money to respondent No. 3. The seized amount remained in police custody and was directed to be deposited with the Additional Registrar of the HC. The HC allowed the petition filed by the Union of India, stayed further disbursement of the money, and permitted the Income Tax Department to take custody after seven days unless challenged separately. The Magistrate was held to have acted without jurisdiction and was relieved from further involvement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2025 13:10:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (6) TMI 227 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462995</link>
      <description>HC quashed the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate concerning the custody and release of Rs. 3,15,000 seized from respondent No. 3, holding those orders void and without jurisdiction. The Court found that the Magistrate failed to consider the statutory provisions under Section 132-A of the Income Tax Act, which vested custody of the seized money with the Income Tax Department upon issuance of a valid warrant of authorisation. The police officer and Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to release the money to respondent No. 3. The seized amount remained in police custody and was directed to be deposited with the Additional Registrar of the HC. The HC allowed the petition filed by the Union of India, stayed further disbursement of the money, and permitted the Income Tax Department to take custody after seven days unless challenged separately. The Magistrate was held to have acted without jurisdiction and was relieved from further involvement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>