TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (7) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and searched the same up to about 5.00 p.m. According to the plaintiff, the raiding party did not find any incriminating documents. However, the said officers wrongly, illegally, unauthorisedly, maliciously and without rhyme or reason or any justification summoned the income-tax authorities to come to the premises and seize the said amount. On their having been summoned, the Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) of the Income-tax Department made a thorough search of the premises from 5.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. and they also did not find any unaccounted money or any other incriminating documents. According to the plaintiff, the cash in the premises was found to be in order. The officers of the Income-tax Department, however, sealed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een wrongfully deprived of the use of the money from July 29, 1983, to its release on April 19, 1984, it was entitled to interest because of the plaintiff having been put to serious loss by the said money continuing to remain blocked under alleged wrongful orders of the officers of the Income-tax Department. A written statement has been filed by the defendant. The defendant has taken the objection that the suit is barred under section 293 of the Income-tax Act as the action of the officers of the Government was in good faith and was done in accordance with the provisions of the Act in the discharge of public duties. The suit was stated to be not maintainable. It was also stated that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. On th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visited the premises of the plaintiff on August 22, 1983, at 11.30 a.m. and stayed there up to 1.00 p.m. However, no one was present at the premises and the same was found to be locked. Mrs. Rani Singh Nair, Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation), vide her letter dated November 24, 1983, requested for certain explanations to be provided on November 28, 1983. On appraisal of information and material before the Department, a report was prepared on December 9, 1983, by Shri P. S. Gupta, Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation). It is, therefore, stated that the action taken by the defendant was in good faith and no mala fides can be imputed. The action is stated to be in the discharge of public duties and warranted by law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(v) of sub-section (1) are or is kept in any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft not mentioned in the authorisation under sub-section (1), such Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 120, authorise the said officer to take action under any of the clauses aforesaid in respect of such building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft. (2) The authorised officer may requisition the services of any police officer or of any officer of the Central Government, or of both, to assist him for all or any of the purposes specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) and it shall be the duty of every such officer to comply with such requisition. (3) The authorised officer may, where it is not p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not been done under the Income-tax Act. Unless it is proved on record by the plaintiff that the action of the Government in passing restraint order dated July 29, 1983, and sealing the safe containing cash was not in good faith or the officers were not empowered to pass such an order under the Act, the plaintiff cannot succeed in the suit. No evidence has been led by the plaintiff to show the mala fides of the officers or to show that the action of the officers of the Income-tax Department was without jurisdiction. Mr. Pradeep Jain has sought to argue that as there was no material before the officers of the Income-tax Department to pass the order of restraint under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act and as the said restraint order was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the restraint order such an action cannot be said to be an act of bad faith. Under section 293 of the Income-tax Act, no suit or other proceedings will lie against the Government or any officer of the Government for anything done in good faith or intended to be done under the Act. The Department had the power under section 132 to pass an order of restraint and the officers, therefore, on the basis of material had chosen to pass such an order. The said order, therefore, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction nor the same can be said to be in bad faith. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the actions of the officers of the Government were done under the Act and in good faith and there is nothing to hold that the said actions were illeg....