MAHARAJA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present case, the respondents had issued an authorisation under S. 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961, against the petitioners and had also issued restraint orders under S. 132(3). There restraint orders were in respect of refunds which were to be made by the petitioners to the persons enumerated in the list running in 29 sheets. These refunds were because of oversubscription to the shares which have been offered to the public by the petitioner. During the pendancy of this writ petition, the earlier restraint order under S. 132(3) has now been converted to be a deemed seizure under the second proviso to S. 132(1).

(2.) THE result of the deemed seizure is that the petitioner is deemed to have made a refund of the extra subscription money received by it to six persons in respect of whom the deemed seizure has been ordered. In our opinion, the deemed seizure would absolve the petitioner of any liability which might be attached to the petitioner under the provisions of laws other than the IT Act, 1961, and the non -refund of the amounts so seized cannot be ground for taking any action by any authority against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner states that over 7.5 lakh applications were received and the initial orders under S. 132(3) pertain to about 18,000 applications and though, most probably, the said orders has been strictly complied with but if in a few of such cases, by oversight, refunds have been made, then no penal action should be taken against the petitioners. Mr. Rajendra, very fairly, submits that, such cases of bona fide omission or mistake, no penal action as contended will be taken. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.