1995 (10) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by M. KATJU J.--This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated June 30, 1995, and July 3, 1995, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Bareilly, respectively. The petitioner is a firm doing the business of manufacture of khandsari sugar and rab, etc. A raid was made on the business and residential prem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,85,000 in favour of the Department to get the release of the stock of sugar. This order has been challenged in this petition on the ground that the order had been passed arbitrarily. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that an order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act has been passed in which it has been held by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax that the tot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....[1989] 176 ITR 261 for the proposition that the proceeding under section 132(3) is an independent proceeding and under section 132(5) the proceeding is a different proceeding. That may be so, but we are of the opinion that where it is found under section 132(5) that the tax liability is more than the value of the goods seized, then it is open to the Department to retain those goods so seized. In t....