TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 is a limited company and petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and managing director and petitioner No. 3 is the employee of petitioner No. 1. The petitioner-company has been carrying on business of manufacture of dealing in, extractor, whole seller, retailer, exporter and importer of all types of ferrous and non-ferrous metal, alloy steels, ferro alloys, pig iron, etc. The petitioner-company also imports goods dealt in by it from the U.S.A. and the Middle East countries. That the petitioner-company has to pay huge customs duties on the imports made by it and during the current year from April 1, 1998 to September 17, 1998, paid a total amount of Rs. 4,62,29,916 (rupees four crores sixty two lakhs twenty-nine thousand nine hundred sixteen) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax and that any amount including the amount in question, which was meant for deposit of customs duty is open to the revenue authority for assessment in the coming assessment period and also that the petitioner is always at the disposal of the respondent-Revenue authority for any assessment and realisation thereof. Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the conditions precedent for issuance of warrant of authorisation under section 132A(1) of the Act were not present. That the authority prescribed in this section before issue of a warrant of authorisation must have in consequence of information in his possession, reason to believe that those assets which are to be requisitioned represent either wholly or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the officer or authority under Any other law for the time being in force, or . . . (c) any assets represent either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not have been, disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act by any person from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force." Mr. Sahewalla, submitted that in view of the facts as revealed, the petitioner's case has not come under the purview of this section. Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the authority prescribed has to consider the existing facts in order to arrive at a satisfa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y non-consideration of relevant matter and the facts and circumstances of the case and the power conferred by the law having not been exercised in a bona fide manner, the impugned action is wholly illegal. Mr. G. K. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent, has furnished a copy of the satisfaction notice issued by the revenue authority and has submitted that in this note the revenue authority in clear terms explained its satisfaction. It was submitted that the information has been received from the incharge of Latasil Police Station, Guwahati, that a sum of Rs. 50,00,000 has been seized from the possession of petitioner No. 3, an employee of petitioner No. 1 by Mr. S. C. Barua, sub-inspector and officer-in-charge of Azara Police Station, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that from the satisfaction note recorded by the respondent, it is clear that the warrant of authorisation was issued merely on the basis of the information received from the police and that satisfaction note stated that the cash found "appeared to be undisclosed" and, therefore, it was a case of suspicion, and that the same was issued merely on the basis of suspicion. To substantiate his submission, Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO [1986] 159 ITR 956, 972 (SC), submitted that a belief cannot be based on suspicion ; more so, when there was no allegation of any offence by the police and no first information report was registered against the petitioner and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the amount is an undisclosed amount. Apparently the seized two letters disclosed the fact that the amount was meant for payment of customs duty. Therefore, I am of the view that there is merit in the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the warrant was issued merely on the basis of the information received from the police and that according to the satisfaction note, "the cash found appeared to be undisclosed" is a clear case of suspicion. I further hold that there was no material before the Commissioner; other than the information from the police and there was no application of mind by him. It is also a fact that possession of the amount was not unexpected as the two seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
