TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan, dated July 18, 1989 (see [1989] 180 ITR 365). The petitioner herein, i.e., Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal, carried on, at all relevant times, business under the name and style of Lata and Company and she claims to be an authorised stockist of Baba Brand Tobacco manufactured by Dharampal Premchand Ltd., New Delhi. Mr. R. K. Singhal is the husband of the petitioner. In the judgment under appeal, it has been stated that Mr. R. K. Singhal owns a house No. E 117, Shastri Nagar, in Jaipur and the petitioner lived there with her husband at all material times. Mr. Singhal was a partner in Lata Sales Centre and is said to be a sub-dealer of Lata and Company. A search under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search and seizure of the assets could not be said to have been made in accordance with law. The High Court noted that, in view of the fact that by virtue of the power under section 132(7) an order had been made under section 132(5) of the Act against the husband of the petitioner, the valuables, etc., could not be ordered to be returned to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner seeks to challenge the said order under article 136 of the Constitution of India. Mr. C. S. Agarwal, appearing for the petitioner, contended before us that if the search and seizure were illegal, then the evidence obtained by such search and seizure could be utilised in subsequent proceedings, but the items of jewellery and goods worth, according to him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wellery and ornaments, such decision cannot be faulted. Even though the search and seizure has been declared illegal, it cannot be illegal and the question of dispute about the items not being urged before the High Court, we cannot say that the High Court has committed any error in this case thereby requiring interference by this court, or, in other words, that injustice has been caused to any party. It is well-settled that the dispute as to the ownership of jewellery in question cannot be resolved in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution in the manner sought for by the petitioner. Mr. Agarwal drew our attention to the decision in Assainar v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 854, wherein the Kerala High Court has observed that the goods whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are clearly of the opinion that this submission will not be of any assistance in doing justice in this case. Mr. Agarwal further contended that if the proceedings under section 132(5) for the original search were held to be invalid, then all proceedings thereafter would be invalid and, therefore, the proceedings initiated as result of that search even against the husband would be invalid and such statement of the husband recorded cannot be utilised any further. In the instant controversy, we are not concerned with whether the proceedings against the husband under section 132(5) of the Act are valid or not but, irrespective of the validity of the proceedings, the evidence or testimony as mentioned hereinbefore, wherein he has asserted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
