1993 (5) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Pandey and D.C. Taneja for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Mital, CJ.- On 17-7-1991, the premises of the petitioner were searched by the Customs authorities under section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 and as many as 27 incriminating documents relating to import business were seized. After complying with the procedure, summons were issued under section 108 of the Customs Act. On 18-7-1991, the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 of 1993 has been filed. During the pendency of this writ petition, on 18-2-1993 the Income-tax Department completed the assessment for the year 1990-91 and assessed the income at Rs. 32,19,789 resulting in demand of Rs. 13,56,149. 3. In para 4 of the counter-affidavit, it is also stated that show-cause notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been served on the petitioner, which proceedi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner within the prescribed time. Accordingly, CW No. 3906 of 1992 is dismissed. 5. As regards the attachment order, it is said that the order did not satisfy the requirement of section 281B of the Act. On a consideration of the matter, we are not satisfied with the argument of the petitioner's counsel that the requirements of section 281B were not attracted for issuing an attachment order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een initiated. 6. It was then argued that the order of attachment was illegal when it was made as the assessment proceedings were pending and the demand had yet to be made. We do not find any merit in the argument. The provision relating to making an attachment before judgment, i.e., before assessment order is made, is not illegal if the assessing authority is of the opinion that it is necessar....