TMI Blog1979 (1) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that the East Thathankulam Lift Irrigation Society is one of the co-operative societies, which are members of the first respondent-Federation. One of the other objects of the Federation is stated to be to encourage generally thrift, self-help and co-operation among the affiliated societies and the members, to raise funds by way of deposits from members and also to borrow money from members and non-members and to undertake such other activities as may be conducive to the promotion of the economic interests of the members of the affiliated Societies. The Federation was taking deposits on payment of interest at 10% per annum. According to the said Devarajan, about 650 farmers had lent monies on interest to the Federation and he himself had advanced a sum of Rs. 18,500 on 20th September, 1975, through the East Thathankulam Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society. He heard in June, 1976, that the Federation had gone into problems with the I.T. Dept. as a result of which the Federation was not in a position to repay the loans made to it. He filed a suit in the City Civil Court for recovery of Rs. 19,877.50, being the principal and interest due on the promissory note under O. XXXVII, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order under s. 132(3) of the Act. The said petition, W.M.P. No. 1396 of 1977, came to be heard by Koshal J., as he then was, on 29th April, 1977. He directed the fifth respondent to make within period of one month from April 29,1977, a provisional assessment of the probable maximum amount of income-tax which the Federation might have to pay and to release the rest of the first respondent's (Federation's) frozen accounts. If such an assessment was not made within the said period, then the writ petitioner would be entitled to have the amount of the decree obtained by him against the Federation released by the fifth respondent subject to the writ petitioner furnishing security. If the tax due on the basis of the assessment was found to be not less than the amount, which had been frozen, then the writ petitioner would have to take further orders of the court and the matter was adjourned to 20th June, 1977. However, the matter came to be placed before Mohan J. during the vacation because of W.M.P. No. 1863 of 1977 and he passed further order in which reference was made to the earlier order of Koshal J. It was directed that if the liability of the Federation was found to be less, even th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f May, 1976, there was a report by the sub-inspector of CBI addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Madras, CBI, in connection with an enquiry made by them in respect of certain lift irrigation societies of Tirunelveli District. A copy of the raid report was sent by the CBI to the intelligence wing of the I.T. Dept. and according to the fifth respondent it was found from that report that the Federation through its managing director by name Chandrasekaran opened a savings bank account in Dena Bank, Mount Road, Madras, on 10th September, 1975, with a sum of Rs. 457.52. As on 26th May, 1976, the balance in the said account amounted to Rs. 30,41,569.16. According to the fifth respondent this information revealed certain peculiarities in the sense that a co-operative society starting a savings bank account with a balance amount of Rs. 457.52 in a bank had in the said account, within a short period of 8 months, accumulated over Rs. 30,00,000. It was also unusual that co-operative institution should maintain such a huge bank account in non-cooperative bank, as the funds of a co-operative society are ordinarily kept in a co-operative bank. The affairs of the lift irrigation societies, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere in the area and from the postman, he learnt that there was a godown at Neelangarai belonging to Si. Pa. Aditanar, a former Minister. On contacting the watchman there, he found that Chandrasekaran had left the place by bus for Dinathanthi office and the watchman was asked to inform Chandrasekaran about the fifth respondent's visit to the place. Chandrasekaran appeared at the office of the fifth respondent on 2nd June, 1976, and from him the existence of other bank accounts came to be gathered. Similar warrants were obtained from the Director of Inspection, and the accounts, in (i) the Bank of Madura Ltd., Godown Street, Madras, (ii) the Madras Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mukkar Nallamuthu Street, Madras-1, and (iii) the Dena Bank, Mount Road were subjectmatter of orders under s. 132(3). It was these orders which are the subject of the challenge in the writ petition. Some of the facts stated above have been taken from the further affidavit filed by the fifth respondent during the course of the hearing before us, in respect of which there is also a further reply affidavit filed by the said Chandrasekaran. The two main questions that arise for consideration are: " (1) Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and this Committee had also something to say about the special powers and their utility from the point of view of preventing evasion. When the Act of 1961 was enacted, the provisions contained in s. 37 were split into two main sections, viz., s. 131 and s. 132. The two provisions were not, however, materially different from the earlier one. There was an amendment of s. 132 by the Finance Act of 1964 and again by Central Act No. 1 of 1965, which came into force on 15th March, 1965. There were minor amendments in the year 1975. From the summary of the above legislative history, which has been brought out in Venkata Reddy v. ITO [1967] 66 ITR 212 (Mys), it would be clear that the sole object of enacting these provisions was and continues to be prevention of tax evasion. The amendments were necessary in order to plug the loopholes which were discovered from time to time or which were brought to light in the course of the administration of these provisions, so that evasion of taxes became more unattractive and difficult. Section 132(1) provides as follows : " 132. (1) Where the Director of Inspection or the Commissioner or any such Deputy Director of Inspection or Inspecting Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft, if the authorised officer has reason to suspect that such person has secreted about his person any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing; (iii) seize any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found as a result of such search; (iv) place marks of identification on any books of account or other documents or make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom; (v) make a note or an inventory of any such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing ........" In the above provision cl. (a) contemplates a case where there has been non-compliance on the part of the assessee and cl. (b) contemplates a case where a summons or notice has been issued and the appropriate authority has reason to believe that the relevant account books, etc., called for would not be produced. Clause (b) takes in also a case where the issue of notice is under contemplation and the authority is satisfied that the person would not produce the relevant document. In the present case there has been no such issue of notice c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assets) is seized under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A), the Income-tax Officer, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned of being heard and making such inquiry as may be prescribed, shall, within ninety days of the seizure, make an order, with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, (i) estimating the undisclosed income (including the income from the undisclosed property) in a summary manner to the best of his judgment on the basis of such materials as are available with him; (ii) calculating the amount of tax on the income so estimated in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), or this Act ; (iia) determining the amount of interest payable and the amount of penalty imposable in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), or this Act, as if the order had been the order of regular assessment; (iii) specifying the amount that will be required to satisfy any existing liability under this Act and any one or more of the Acts specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 230A in respect of which such person is in default or is deemed to be in de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) or sub-s. (1A) of this provision. Sub-section (14) contemplates rules being made for this purpose. The procedure to be followed by the authorised officer for obtaining ingress into any building to be searched or for ensuring safe custody of any books of account or other documents or assets seized are to be prescribed by Rules. The assets retained under s. 132(5) may be applied in satisfaction of any existing liability to tax including penalty. There is also a provision for sale of assets other than money under cl. (iii) of s. 132B(1). Any assets remaining after the liabilities are satisfied have to be returned to the persons from whom they were seized. The Central Govt. has to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the aggregate of the amount retained that exceeds the amount required to meet the liabilities to tax. The interest commences to run from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the order under sub-s. (5) of s. 132 to the date of the regular assessment or reassessment, as the case may be. It is in the context of this provision that we have to consider the contentions of the learned counsel for the writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a petition by an aggrieved person cannot be asked to substitute its own opinion whether an order authorising search should have been issued. Again, any irregularity in the coarse of entry, search and seizure committed by the officer acting in pursuance of the authorisation will not be sufficient to vitiate the action taken, provided the officer has, in executing the authorisation, acted bona fide. The Act and the Rules do not require that the warrant of authorisation should specify the particulars of documents and books of account: a general authorisation to search for and seize documents and books of account relevant to or useful for any proceeding complies with the requirements of the Act and the Rules. It is for the officer making the search to exercise his judgment and seize or not to seize any documents or books of account. An error committed by the officer in seizing documents which may ultimately be found not to be useful for or relevant to the proceeding under the Act will not by itself vitiate the search, nor will it entitle the aggrieved person to an omnibus order releasing all documents seized. " Throughout in the above passage, reference is to the books of account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir learned counsel, was that any deposit made in a bank created only a relationship of debtor and creditor between the bank and the depositor, and that such a debt is not comprehended by any of the expressions used in s. 132. Sub-section (1) of s. 132 has already been extracted and the expressions used in cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) are " any money, bullion, jewellery or, other valuable article or thing ". The section contemplates the authorising officer, i.e., the Director of Inspection and others, in consequence of information in his possession having reason to believe that any parson is in possession of any money, etc., representing either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not be, disclosed for the purposes of the Act. His point was that a debt in favour of a depositor in a bank not being money, etc., s. 132(1)(c) would have no scope for application, so that there could be no order as contemplated by sub-s. (3) of s. 132. As far as the law relating to banking is concerned, when a customer pays in money on deposit, the money paid in cannot be considered as fund held by the banker in trust for the customer. It is merely a loan to the banker and the cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... England, 4th Edn., the law is stated as follows : " For the purpose of satisfying a High Court or county court judgment for the payment of money, any sum standing to a person's credit in deposit account in a bank is deemed to be a sum due or accruing due to that person, and to be attachable accordingly, notwithstanding that any condition applying to the account requiring that, before withdrawal, notice be given, or personal application be made, or a deposit book or receipt for money deposited be produced, has not been satisfied." Even if a deposit is payable at a future date or after the lapse of specified time it is liable to attachment and when the account is attached the whole amount is impounded irrespective of the sum recovered by the judgment unless the order otherwise directs. What is attached is the money in the deposit account. It being a debt due is of no significance as far as the law relating to attachment is concerned. Debts can always be attached. The learned counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R.v. Davenport [1954] 1 All ER 602. That was a case in which the secretary of a company received cheques signed by the directors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year (underlined by us). Section, 69B provides for assessment of any unexplained investment made in bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. Originally there were only two provisions relating to cash credits and unexplained investment. Where any sum is found to be credited in the books of an assessee, and the assessee offered no explanation or the explanation offered by him was not satisfactory, then the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assesses of the relevant previous year (s. 68). Similarly, under s. 69 where the assessee had made investments which are not recorded in his books and the assessee offered no explanation or the explanation is not satisfactory, then the value of the investment may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of the relevant financial year. In order to trace and bring to tax the evaded income in other shapes, ss. 69A and 69B have been enacted. It may be seen that s. 69A does not use the expression " valuable thing " which is used in s. 132(1)(c) only because any amount deposited in the bank account is liable to be brought within the scope of s. 69 as invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed that bank balance is a possession, and only because of its being a possession, it is liable to be inherited. Taking the meaning in popular parlance, the word " thing " would include the balance to the credit of a person in bank. If money in bank deposit is not money, it would at any rate be "valuable thing". At this stage, another contention urged on behalf of the writ petitioners may be considered. It was stated that part of the amounts covered by the order under s. 132(3) was represented by a fixed deposit and it was contended that, in any event, there could be no order under s. 132(3) as against such a fixed deposit. In this connection, reliance was placed on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bhagwandas Narayandas v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 194. In that case, there was a search of the premises of an assessee on 10th July, 1969, and some books of account and papers were seized. However, there was some disturbance in front of the promises and the officials, apprehensive of their safety, left the search incomplete and escaped from the premises by a back-door. The search was, however, continued on August 26, 1969, and cash and certain fixed deposit receipts were seized. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in this context. That was of the Kerala High Court. In Shajahan v. ITO [1976] 104 ITR 265, in the course of a search a bank pass book relating to an assessee was found. A prohibitory order was issued on the bank under s. 132(3) in respect of the said account. When the matter came before a learned single judge of the Kerala High Court, he held, applying the principle that the deposit, with a banker creates only a relationship of debtor and creditor between the banker and the customer, that no order under s. 132(3) could be passed against the bank. The decision was taken on appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court and the Bench decision is ITO v. M. Shajahan [1976] 104 ITR 347. The judgment of the learned single judge was reversed. It was pointed out that the bank had not challenged the issue of the prohibitory order under s. 132(3) and that a writ under art. 226 could not be issued so as to vacate the order. The writ petitions themselves were dismissed. From the judgment of the Division Bench, it is clear that the order under s. 132(3) could be passed in such a case because it would be impracticable to seize the monies deposited in a bank. The proper way in which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasons, which led him to authorise the search. It was pointed out that s. 105 did not say that the Assistant Collector should give reasons and that though he could not make search or authorise any officer to make a search unless he had reason to believe the existence of the facts mentioned in the section, the section did not compel him to give reasons. That such a disclosure is not necessary has also been decided by a Bench of this court in relation to the provisions of s. 147 where also the expression used is " if the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe " in Thanthi Trust v. ITO [1973] 91 ITR 261 (Mad). After referring to several, decisions of the Supreme Court and the Privy Council with reference to s. 34 of the Act of 1922 or s. 147 of the Act of 1961, it was held that such disclosure of the reasons for the belief was unnecessary. The court examined the contention whether such reasons could be required to be disclosed to the assessee in proceedings under art. 226 of the Constitution. It was pointed out that the proceedings under art. 226 did not confer any higher rights and that whatever applied under the particular statute would also apply to the proceedings under art. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We do not consider that there is any substance in the complaints of the writ petitioners that the warrants were not even shown to Chandrasekaran. The other two writ petitioners were never in the scene. They had no interest in the assets of the Federation. There was no question of any disclosure to them. As far as the first respondent is concerned, it was acting through Chandrasekaran and Chandrasekaran had the prohibitory order with him and he was also aware of the search warrants being issued against the bank. Another line of challenge against the proceedings under s. 132 was that there could be no reasonable belief that the amounts to the credit of the Federation in the bank represented undisclosed income, since the accounts to the credit of the Federation in the bank are open for anyone to see. It was also pointed out that the Federation had not been proceeded against in the present case earlier than June, 1976, and that there could be no belief that the Federation was not likely to disclose whatever income it had. As pointed out already, the Federation came into existence by registration under the Co-operative Societies Act on 4th December, 1974. It started with a deposit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this version of the fifth respondent is not correct and that Chandrasekaran was taken to the ITO by some officials as stated by him, still the fact remains that there was no activity of the Federation in Thiruvanmaiyur to be seen by the fifth respondent. The monies were kept in fixed deposit and savings bank account. It is common knowledge that any person carrying on business opens a current account, so that he could freely withdraw the amount as and when required. A savings bank account for a business of the scale indicated by these deposits is extraordinary, and keeping such balances, running into lakhs, in savings bank accounts is also out of the ordinary. The source of these deposits was not known even to the managing director, It is in the light of these features that the Director of Inspection considered that the Federation had undisclosed income in the shape of these deposits. As pointed out in several decisions, if there were reasonable grounds for the belief, that would be sufficient to give jurisdiction. Whether those grounds were adequate or not was not a matter for the court to investigate. It is, of course, open to the assessee to contend that the concerned authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hammed Koya [1973] 91 ITR 301, 306 (Mad): " To say that the power of seizure is not exercisable unless it is preceded by the search of a building or breaking open of locks is to confuse the end with the means and to caricature the intention of the legislature, which, in order to facilitate the power of seizure, has provided also for the ancillary power of invading the privacy of people, by entering and searching their buildings and breaking open the receptacles where the thing to be seized might remain concealed. It would indeed be a captious and pernicious play on words to tell the Income-tax Officer, you have, no doubt, the power of seizure, but you cannot exercise it unless you go through the physical motions of entering a building, searching it, breaking open the locks therein and then finding the thing you want to seize as a result of your searching efforts'." It was further added (307 of 91 ITR): " To say that such a seizure is illegal, because it is not the result of such a search as is contemplated in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Act is to indulge in a self-defeating piece of sophistry. " This decision has been followed by a Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated by s. 132. These requisites are satisfied in this case. We are, therefore, unable to hold that there was anything wrong in the authorisation in the present case to which exception can be taken. It was next contended that s. 132(3) would have no scope for application to a case where according to the authorising authority the undisclosed income has taken the shape of a debt in a bank. Mr. K. K. Venugopal contended that the expression " practicable to seize " occurring in s. 132(3) postulates the possibility of seizure. Where what can be called an incorporeal asset in the shape of a debt is available in a bank, there is no question of its being seized so that no order under s. 132(3) could have been passed in the present case. The words " practicable to seize " appear to have been used in a wide sense. The capacity of the asset to be reduced to possession is not the postulate of the provision. The possession contemplated is such possession as the property is capable of. We have already seen that even incorporeal assets are within the scope of s. 132. It would be a curious situation, if Parliament gave the power to proceed under s. 132 with reference to such asset but did not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the learned counsel, shows that the authorities did not apply their mind properly and that in a serious matter like this, where the right of property guaranteed under arts. 19 and 31 is interfered with under the powers conferred by the statute, then the provision of the statute would have to be strictly complied with, and any defect in compliance will render the whole action invalid and illegal. We do not find that the omission to score the whole of first page after the words extracted already, was such as to mislead anyone or that the search in pursuance thereof can be characterised as an illegal exercise of the powers. At the most, there may be some irregularity in not scoring out that part of the form. But that does not in any way affect the exercise of the power by the authorities concerned. What is sought to be, emphasised in the form is if summons were issued for production, then the required books or documents would not be produced, and that the assets represented by undisclosed income had not been or would not be disclosed. The fixed deposits, the savings bank account, etc., have been referred to in the authorisation. The authority has specified the assets, which require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red that the Federation had undisclosed income and was not likely to disclose it, that would be nothing unreasonable. It was also contended that there were no pending proceedings as against the Federation in the course of which there could be any authorisation. It has been held by the Delhi High Court in Balwant Singh v. R. D. Shah, Director of Inspection, Income-tax [1969] 71 ITR 550, that there was nothing in s. 132 to show that search and seizure under that section could be resorted to only if there were pending proceedings, and that the section did not require that proceedings should be imminent. If there was only a remote possibility of such summonses or notices contemplated by s. 132(1) being issued, the section would not be satisfied, not because there were no proceedings imminent, but because a reasonable person could not have reason to believe that the person concerned would not produce the documents if summonses or notices were issued to him. Thus, pendency of any proceeding in the course of which action can be taken under s. 132(1) is inconsistent with the principle laid down in this decision, which we follow in the present case. The issue of notices was imminent as is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of a completed assessment or in respect of the situation in which the assessee is deemed to be in default. Section 281B is a power to be exercised during the pendency of any proceeding for assessment, so that the assessee does not fritter away or secrete his resources out of the reach of the department when the assessment is completed. Having regard to the provisions of ss. 226 and 281B, it would be clear that s. 132 is intended to be invoked even in the absence of any pending proceeding. Having regard to the history of this provision, it is clear that it is intended to operate to see that the tax evader does not deal with his assets without making proper provision for the tax that may be due from him. Otherwise, the assessment made later would only remain on paper. If in the context of completed assessment or pending assessment, debts could be attached, it would be unreasonable to expect the Legislature to leave the debts out of account in conferring the powers on the taxing authorities under s. 132, so as to safeguard realisation of the revenue. The whole idea is to see that effective steps are taken for the purpose of getting at the resources of tax evaders, so that their o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject to seizure of attachment, as the case may be. In the case of the seized assets, there is a specific provision made for seeing that the assets are not retained beyond the period of ninety days, after seizure. Within that period, the ITO will have to estimate the undisclosed income and provide for the tax as well as interest, etc. He can retain only that portion of the assets necessary to meet the said obligations and refund the balance. In the case of sub-s. (3), the position of the language is not very much different. In other words, that is also a provision intended to be operative temporarily. This is clear from the language of sub-s. (3) itself. It provides that the authorised officer may, where it is not practicable to seize the assets, serve an order on the owner, who is in immediate possession or control thereof, that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with them except with the previous permission of the said officer and such officer may take such steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance with the sub-section. The previous permission can be applied for at any time, even within the period of ninety days. When such an option was given, there was no n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of sub-s. (3) being misused in such a manner cannot justify the importing of the time-limit as specified in sub-s. (5) into sub-s. (3) contrary to what Parliament has done. If Parliament really intended that the procedure contemplated by sub-s. (5) should be attracted to sub-s. (3) it could have so provided, as has been done in sub-s. (7). Thus, having gone into the several objections put forward by Mr. K. K. Venugopal in relation to the attachment of the bank account, it is not possible to agree with him that the said attachment, in the circumstances of the case, is in any manner wrong. Mr. S. Swaminathan, the learned counsel for the Federation, while supplementing the arguments of Mr. K. K. Venugopal on some of these aspects, submitted that an order was made in pursuance of the directions of Koshal J. and Mohan J. and that in the said order it is stated that it was not possible to discern that the money belonged to the farmers or lift irrigation society. His point was that even in the provisional assessment order as made by the ITO in pursuance of the court's direction on 27th May, 1977, the ITO had not been able to make up his mind whether the money belonged to the farmer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called the " provisional assessment " on 27th May, 1977. He would have to act in accordance with the provisions of the law in dealing with the explanation regarding the ownership of these funds when he completes the respective amendments in due course. We do not find that the ITO has in the provisional assessment made any statement as if the assessee is not at all concerned with the amount and that only others are to be dealt with. The only other submission made on the merits by Mr. Swaminathan was that, at any rate, the fixed deposit of Rs. 6,00,000 cannot be the subject of any attachment. He drew our attention to a decision in Bagley v. Winsome and National Provincial Bank Ltd. [1952] 2 QB 236 (CA). In that case a creditor had obtained judgment against a debtor for a sum of pound 50. The judgment-debtor had money in excess of pound 50 lying on deposit with the National Provincial Bank. The judgment-debtor gave notice to the bank to withdraw his money and the notice took effect on January 11, 1952, and on that date the judgment-creditor took out garnishee summons and the garnishee order was refused, because the condition on which the bank accepted the deposit amount included a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Federation, which is the judgment-debtor. Learned counsel for the petitioners was not in position to show that the two decree-holders had any interest in the assets, which are now the subject-matter of attachment. They have not even taken out any application for attachment before judgment or after it. The decree-holders cannot be said to be interested in the assets of the judgment debtor so as to prevent a third party from proceeding with his claims. It is now well settled that in a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus the person who claims the writ should prove some interest. As the legal position is not in dispute, we do not think it necessary to go into this point further by referring to the decided cases, and we, therefore, hold that the two writ petitioners, viz., Devarajan and Dakshinamoorthy, cannot maintain their petitions and their writ petitions will have to be dismissed. The only point that is now left for consideration is the objection to the validity of s. 132 based on arts. 14, 19 and 31. With reference to this aspect there is a decision of the Supreme Court holding the provision to be constitutionally valid In Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)(c) of the Act. The submission of the learned counsel, is, therefore, devoid of substance." That was a decision where a matter was sought to be re-argued before the Supreme Court itself for getting the question of validity reconsidered. Whether a High Court can examine the validity of a provision whose validity had already been pronounced upon has been examined in Ballabhdas Mathuradas Lakhani v. Municipal Committee, Malkapur, AIR 1970 SC 1002. The question considered in that case was whether the High Court was justified in considering the matter in the light of fresh submissions which, according to the High Court, had not been considered by the Supreme Court. In that case, the Bombay High Court referred question to a Full Bench whether in respect of the recoveries, which were in contravention of the prohibitions contained in sub-s. (2) of s. 142A of the Government of India Act, 1935, and cl. (2) of art. 276 of the Constitution, the provisions of s. 48(2) of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, applied ? The Full Bench, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Kala Bhanday v. Municipal Committee of Dhamangaon [1965] 3 SCR 499 ; AIR 1966 SC 249, answered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at is pointed out if, that there are safeguards, which are built into sub-s. (5) like having to pass an order within a particular time and to retain only those funds, which are necessary to meet the demand and the absence of any such limitations in sub-s. (3). It has already been seen that though, in a manner of speaking, sub-s. (3) does not contain any time limit, it would appear that the time limit in sub-s. (3) would, in conceivable cases, be even less than the period contemplated by sub-s. (5), as the is free to approach the authorised officer for return of the money for lifting the attachment even before the expiry of 90 days. In this view, there would be no adverse or hostile discrimination between a case coming within sub-s. (5) and a case coming within sub-s. (3), the discrimination being in favour of those covered by sub-s. (5). If in any case, the authority did not grant the permission, that would not invalidate the provision. We are not thus satisfied that there is any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was any discrimination. The proceedings in relation to the assets, which are seized, are different from those which are sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
