1984 (12) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Search and Seizure - writ petition against the prohibitory orders which were issued under section 132(3) to the first respondent with respect to goods in the godowns - abuse of process of court by withdrawal of writ after obtaining exparte injunction - respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner a sum by way of restitution for the quantity of the goods removed from the three godowns so that the position as it obtained prior to the removal of the goods from the three godowns is restored

Summary

Issues: Abuse of court process for gaining advantage, Restitution of goods removed under ex parte injunction

Abuse of Court Process for Gaining Advantage:
The judgment addresses a case where the first respondent abused the legal process to gain an undeserved advantage. The respondent obtained an ex parte interim injunction from the Calcutta High Court, prohibiting interference with goods stored in three godowns. Subsequently, the respondent removed the goods from the godowns based on this injunction and withdrew the writ petition challenging the prohibitory orders. The Supreme Court noted that this strategy was aimed at defeating the prohibitory orders issued by the income-tax authorities. The court emphasized that regardless of the validity of the orders, the respondent's actions circumvented the prohibitions. The Attorney-General argued that the value of the removed goods should be restituted as the respondent misused the court process for personal gain. The court directed an inquiry to ascertain the value of the goods removed and appointed an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to conduct the investigation. The respondent and the Income-tax Officer were given opportunities to present relevant evidence during the inquiry, which was to be completed by February 25, 1985.

Restitution of Goods Removed Under Ex Parte Injunction:
Following the inquiry, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner submitted a report stating that 235 metric tonnes of goods valued at Rs. 14 lakhs were removed by the respondent from the three godowns. The court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 14 lakhs to the petitioner within six weeks as restitution for the removed goods. The purpose was to restore the situation to its original state before the goods were taken. The judgment clarified that the respondent could contest the valuation of the goods in future proceedings, but the burden of proof would lie with the respondent. The court disposed of the special leave petition with this directive, emphasizing the importance of upholding the integrity of legal processes and preventing their misuse for personal gain.