SP DHANALAKSHMI Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to hand over the petitioner's stridhana jewels (ten items listed in the annexure to the petition) to her Notice of motion was ordered on July 19, 1989.Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram appears for the respondent on instructions.THE writ petitioner was an assessee under the Income-tax Act for the year 1977-78. She alleges that, in her return for the year 1977-78, she included her wealth for 1977-78 and 1978-79 claiming that the stridhana jewels listed along with the return less the liability due by her was less than the taxable limit. It seems that the petitioner's father-in-law's house was raided in April, 1982, and a panchanama was prepared in which the jewels are listed as belonging to her.

(2.) THE doors of the rooms in which the jewels were kept were sealed. THE allegation is that so far no order has been passed by the Income-tax Department on the petition even though seven years have gone by. It seems that, during 1984, the doors of the rooms were opened without notice to the petitioner or her husband and in that regard certain contempt proceedings were taken in Contempt Application No. 72 of 1984. Sathiadev J. considered the matter in detail and passed an order, which is reported in 1987 (167) ITR 443, 1987 (66) CTR 252, 1987 (30) TAXMAN 346 (Chidambaram v. D. Venkatesan). Now, the petitioner has comeforward before this court on the ground that no warrant has been issued against the petitioner nor were proceedings initiated in respect of her properties by the Department. It is alleged in the affidavit that the law regarding the powers of the respondent under section 132, as has been consistently held by the Supreme Court, is that once the period of limitation of 120 days was over and when there is no communication of extension of time of 90 days within the prescribed time, the continuance of seizure of the assessee's assets is thoroughly illegal under article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE only course which can be adopted in the circumstances of the case is to direct the respondent to move the Sub Court as per the earlier order. At any rate, I have to point out that it is not fair on the part of the Department to keep the matter pending for 71/2 years after passing the prohibitory order against the assessee. It is the duty of the respondent, I think, to pass an order either way and leave the matter to be fought out by the affected parties. Even to give the present reply, the Department has taken two years, when the petitioner had approached the respondent in 1987. 1 think that the action of the Department in this matter cannot be said to be right.