Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Paras Rice Mills Versus Union of India And Others

2015 (9) TMI 1122 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Whether the suit for recovery for the losses caused by the inaction of the respondents in not disposing of the perishable items taken in possession vide deemed seizure order dated 17.10.1995 is maintainable?

Whether the appellant is entitled for the damages for the loss suffered by it due to non-disposal of the seized items and kept in deemed possession of the respondents without any rhyme or reason?

Whether once it has been found that the items seized by the respondents we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

suit is maintainable. So, that finding of fact cannot be interfered in regular second appeal. The plaintiff has failed to prove that any illegal raid was conducted by the Income Tax Authorities and he has also failed to prove the damages suffered by him. So, no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present regular second appeal. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. - RSA No. 3593 of 2013 (O&M) - Dated:- 31-8-2015 - K. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant-plaintiff was a registered partnership firm and Dharam Pal Goel was its registered partner, who had filed the suit. During the financial years 1992-1993 to 1995-1996, the appellant-plaintiff firm had been carrying on the business of paddy shelling/husking under the name and style of M/s Paras Rice Mills, Kurukshetra. The appellant-plaintiff firm had been filing income tax returns regularly in the office of Income Tax Officer, Kurukshetra. The accounts of the appellantplaintiff firm for t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of the appellant-plaintiff firm was raided by the income tax officials. Defendant No. 2 was the in-charge of the whole search operations. Respondent-defendant No. 2 managed to obtain search warrants from higher authorities by misleading the facts. The entire paddy of superfine variety and basmati variety purchased by the appellant-plaintiff firm up to 26.9.1995 was lying in the premises of appellant-plaintiff and M/s Saraswati Rice Sheller, Bye pass road, Kurukshetra which was on lease with th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder were moved to respondent-defendant No.2, but in vain. It was only on 17.10.1995 that request of appellant-plaintiff to revoke the restraint order dated 26.9.1995 was accepted. To cause further loss to the appellant-plaintiff firm, respondent-defendant No. 2 had promulgated deemed seizure order on 17.10.1995 on the following items which were subjected to natural decay being perishable in nature:- 1. Rice superfine : 1553 quintals 61 kgs. 2. Rice Bran : 61 quintals 70 kgs. 3. Rice Basmati : 4 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndant No. 2 and 3 for revocation of seizure order dated 17.10.1995 but the said representations were not decided intentionally. An assessment order for the alleged block period i.e. assessment years 1986- 87 to 1996-97 was passed by respondent-defendant No. 3 on 26/27.9.1997. However, after that no order regarding utilization of stock lying under deemed seizure order was passed. The appellant-plaintiff firm offered to defendantsrespondents to purchase the stocks at the value being imposed by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he defendants-respondents, the rice bran put by the respondents-defendants under deemed seizure order dated 17.10.1995 worth ₹ 22,212/- became waste/decayed. A sum of ₹ 8,379.83/- was incurred for maintenance of rice stock. The appellant-plaintiff also suffered loss of ₹ 7,03,826.47 towards interest and ₹ 57,456/- on account of rent for space which remained occupied by the said stock put under deemed seizure order by the defendants-respondents. Legal notice dated 31.12.19 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

raswati Rice Sheller Bye-pass road, Kurukshetra. It was pleaded that the respondent-defendant No. 2 was neither competent to procure nor obtained the search warrants as alleged. The allegations were not only false but defamatory in nature. The search warrants were always issued by the competent authority in consequence of information in his possession and the competent authority was always competent to issue search warrants after applying mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. No junio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

further pleaded that the above stock was found in the premises of the appellant-plaintiff firm situated at Jhansa Road, Thanesar. It was denied that this stock was found in the premises of M/s Saraswati Rice Sheller By-pass road, Kurukshetra alleged to be on lease with the appellant-plaintiff firm. The premises of M/s Saraswati Rice Sheller was also covered under survey under Section 133A(1) of the Income Tax Act simultaneously on 26.9.1995. An inventory of the stock found in said premises was a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nts had no personal enmity with the appellant-plaintiff firm, therefore, the question of having any intention to cause loss to the appellant-plaintiff firm did not arise at all. The deemed seizure order dated 17.10.1995 was perfectly legal and justified. The stock put under seizure was sold in order to effect the recovery of outstanding tax demand as per the orders of this Court and the said stock was sold at ₹ 675/- per quintal. The stock of basmati rice was sold at ₹ 2016/- per qui .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant-plaintiff firm namely Satish Kumar informed the said Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax that the stock had been shifted to the premises of M/s Saraswati Rice Sheller situated at bye-pass road, Gandhi Nagar, Kurukshetra. The appellant-plaintiff firm was not competent to shift the stock which was under deemed seizure without prior permission of the defendants. Therefore, the appellant-plaintiff firm with malafide intention had removed the stock. As per the seizure order, the appellant- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant-plaintiff was duly informed vide letter dated 10.11.1997 to make payment of full value of stock. Moreover, when the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax visited the premises of Saraswati Rice Sheller situated at Bye-pass road, Gandhi Nagar, Kurukshetra, it was discovered that the stock was less than the stock placed under deemed seizure. The total stock found in the said premises was as under:- i) Super fine rice : 500 to 600 quintals. ii) Rice Bran. : 44 quintals. It was further plead .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and their driver, as a result of which, an FIR was also lodged by the said officer with the Police Station, City Thanesar. Separate proceedings under Section 275-A of the Income Tax for violation of the order passed under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act had already been initiated against the appellant-plaintiff firm. The plaintiff, in fact, himself sold away the entire stock which was placed under seizure on 17.10.1995 which included rice, rice bran etc. Therefore, no loss whatsoever was c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

@ 2% per month from 31.12.1998 till realization thereof? OPP. 2) Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit? OPD. 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4) Whether the suit is not within limitation?OPD. 5) Whether the suit is barred U/s 10-11 CPC? OPD. 6) Relief. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2010 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version