TMI Blog1973 (11) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the income-tax department dated 10th May, 1972, passed under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rule 112(11) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The relevant facts are simple. On the 23rd August, 1970, at about 5 a.m., the petitioner, Tarsem Kumar, was travelling in an Ambassador car No. DHA 561 alleged by him to be belonging to his brother, Satish Kumar, from Ambala to Batala. He was intercepted near the Beas river by the Customs officer and was forcibly taken along with the driver, Gurnam Singh, to the Customs House at Amritsar at 6 a.m. The petitioner was searched and so also his driver and the customs people took into possession Rs. 93,500 in Indian currency, 10 gold sovereigns and the car. On the 24th August, 1970, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax authorities. This led to the present petition by Tarsem Kumar. The contention of the learned counsel for Tarsem Kumar, is that the authorisation warrant is illegal, because the money was not in his possession and was in the possession of the Customs authorities. Therefore, no such warrant could be issued to get hold of the money under section 132 of the Income-tax Act. The second contention, though not set up in the petition, is that the action taken by the income-tax authorities under section 132 would militate or set at naught the provisions of section 110(2) of the Customs Act. It is the validity of these contentions that we are called upon to determine. So far as the first contention is concerned, the matter is not res integra. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on if accepted would negative the decision of this court in Ramesh Chander's case. Mr. Awasthy then contends that in Ramesh Chander's case, police had registered cases against him and they were pending in a criminal court. Thus the money was case property and had to be dealt with in the manner prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such Ramesh Chander's case will not govern the present case. We are unable to accept this contention because the learned judges in that case proceeded to quash the authorisation and search warrants issued under section 132 of the Income-tax Act on two independent grounds and one of them was that the money was not in the possession of Ramesh Chander. However, the second ground, which also prevailed wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was observed by Tuli J. that a certain amount is due to the income-tax department and the amount taken possession of by the department under section 132 be refunded minus that amount. It is also pointed out that in his application to the Collector of Customs dated 11th May, 1972, the petitioner stated that an amount of Rs. 26,506 is due to the income-tax department and this amount may be deducted from the amount that was seized and the balance of Rs. 66,994 be given to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has cleared the dues of the income-tax department. If this is so, no deduction can be made. But if this is not so, our direction then is that the amount of income-tax, Rs. 26,506, be ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
