TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the name of the petitioner. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is an individual based at Mohali. He is engaged in the business as Director of M/s Amit Overseas Pvt. Limited having its registered office at New Delhi. The petitioner is regularly assessed to income tax for his income from business and other sources. On 18.5.2017, the petitioner being Director of M/s Amit Overseas Pvt. Limited entered into sale of property. The sale was by way of registered sale deed executed between M/s Amit Overseas Private Limited with M/s C.G. Foods India Limited for sale of company's property at Gurgaon. As per original Memorandum of Understanding entered between the parties on 23.9.2014, the total sale consideration was settled at Rs. 6 crores but after further negotiations, it was reduced to Rs. 5.60 crores with Rs. 2.80 crores to be paid by cheque/draft and balance Rs. 2.80 crores to be paid in cash on execution of registered sale deed. The petitioner received Rs. 2.80 crores cash on 18.5.2015 which he was carrying in his car when intercepted by police at Narayana, New Delhi. The statement of the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipt. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioner. 3. Admittedly, the cash amounting to Rs. 2,76,35,500/- was seized on 19.5.2015 during the course of search of the vehicle of the petitioner. The amount was in the possession of the petitioner though the petitioner claimed that it was the money belonging to the company. At this stage, there is no material on record to establish the truthfulness of the assertion of the petitioner except reliance has been placed on the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act or the sale deed executed by the company. The petitioner from whose possession the money was seized has been issued notice under Section 153A for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 and under Section 143(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17 where he would get sufficient opportunity to establish his version. The warrant of the authorization was in the name of the petitioner and the seizure was also from his possession of cash amounting to Rs. 2,76,35,500/-. In such circumstances, the issuance of notices by the competent authority under Sections 153A and 143(2) of the Act as noticed above cannot be held to be without jurisdiction so as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. (See: N.T. Veluswami Thevar vs. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422; Municipal Council, Khurai vs. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653; Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436; S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75; Kerala SEB vs. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2001) 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509; Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2003) 1 SCC 72). 17. In Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India, (2011) 14 SCC 337, this Court has held that where hierarchy of appeals is pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine." 14. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. 607, para 77) "77. ... So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226-or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32-is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment.""(See: G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472; Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 3 SCC 5; C.A. Abraham v. ITO, (1961) 2 SCR 765; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. St....