TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (2) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel appearing for the Income-tax Department. Unfurling the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner has narrated that pursuant to the warrant of authorisation issued by the Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad, a search and seizure operation was conducted in the residential premises of one Sri S. S. Sharma at Shyamkunj, Khandala House, on April 29, 1992. Simultaneously searches were also conducted at the farm house at Heetapura Ajmir Road, Jaipur, as well as industry premises of RCS Vanaspati Industries Ltd., 164/81, Industrial Area, Khotwara Jaipur. During the course of the search many incriminating documents, accounts, cash/valuable, etc., were found and seized by the Department. The operation was conducted under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority failed to perform the statutory obligation by not releasing the said properly explained seized assets which were retained by the Revenue. It is stated that such retention of the properly explained seized assets is a clear violation of the statutory provisions of law and respondent No. 1 should be directed to release the same forthwith. The short point involved in this case is relating to the interpretation of section 132(5) of the Act. Section 132(5) is quoted below : 13 2. (5) Where any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this section and in sections 132A and 132B referred to as the assets) is seized under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) as a result of a search initiated or requisition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions, has cited a decision of this court in Manik Chand Soni v. Asst. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 552 and fairly submits that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the ratio of the said decision. I do subscribe to the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly I am inclined to accept the applicability of the ratio of Manik Chand Soni's case [1995] 216 ITR 552 (Gauhati) to the case in hand. Countering the contentions made by Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, U. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the Income tax Department, raises some objection as regards the maintainability of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of having alternative remedy. Dwelling on paragraph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is involved, a writ petition is maintainable in spite of having an alternative remedy. In this regard, the apex court's decision in Paradip Port Trust v. STO [1999] 114 STC 178 may be looked into. In the case in hand though the petitioner has approached respondent No. 2 on September 10, 1992, under section 132(11) of the Act against the impugned order, the date of hearing of the same was fixed only on March 31, 1994. On that day the matter was heard but respondent No. 2 did not pass any order till the date of filing this petiion and seized assets have been retained in violation of the provisions of law. Further, I do not find reason as to why the impugned order cannot be challenged under article 226 of the Constitution invoking the writ jur....