New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

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

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

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The Income Tax Act is a complete Code and no separate 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the facts of the case of plaintiff-appellant are that appellant-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, Kuruks .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fund of ₹ 24,160/-. On 26.9.1995, business premises 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 Shelle .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ions dated 27.9.1995 and 29.9.1995 to revoke restraint order 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

996, 13.7.1996 and 5.9.1996 were made to respondent-defendant 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the purchaser. Due to the illegal acts and conduct of the 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f was carrying on the business in the premises of M/s Saraswati 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 m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ati. : 42.96 quintals. d) Bran : 61.70 quintals. It was 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x demand in the assessee s case. The respondents-defendants 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant-plaintiff firm. On enquiry, the manager of the 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 rem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stock against advance payment of ₹ 1 lac and the 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 quin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Nalin Goyal, close relatives of the appellant-plaintiff 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest @ 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 pl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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