ATTA HUSAIN Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution is made to an order dt. 29th Jan., 2001 Annex. P5 by which the competent authority of the IT Department has initiated proceedings against the petitioner under S. 132A of the IT Act, 1961.

(2.) FACTS in nutshell relevant for deciding the writ petition indicate that on 23rd Jan., 2001 petitioner was travelling allegedly in a jeep hired by him in District, Bhopal. The jeep was seized by the Station House Officer, Khajuri Sadak District-Bhopal and cash amounting to Rs. 6.5 lacs was seized from the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that with regard to criminal case registered against the petitioner, no action was taken and the police has submitted a closure report. However, it is seen from the records that the amount seized from the petitioner was deposited with the police authorities and the police authorities have resultantly deposited it with the Criminal Court, where the matter was registered by the police authorities. After the communication was received from the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and on being satisfied that it was a fit case for taking action under S. 132A of the IT Act, 1961, the warrant of authorization was issued on 29th Jan., 2001 by the Director of IT (Inv.), Bhopal under S. 132A requiring the police authorities to deliver the seized cash to the IT Department. After the warrant of requisition was served on respondent No. 3, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently was released on bail. The police authorities informed the IT Department that the seized cash has been deposited in the Court. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application before the First Addl. Sessions Judge for release of the cash. This prayer of the petitioner was rejected on 28th June, 2001 on the ground that the cash cannot be released to the petitioner as warrant of requisition under S. 132A is already issued. However, after passing this order and rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner, the First Addl. Sessions Judge passed another order on 23rd Nov., 2001. Another order was passed that the cash can be released by the consent of the IT Department and the IT authorities are free to pass necessary order in the tax proceedings. Subsequently, on 3rd Sept., 2002, petitioner again made an application before the First Addl. Sessions Judge Bhopal for release of the seized amount and on 24th March, 2003 the First Addl. Sessions Judge Bhopal passed an order directing the respondent No. 2 to examine the documents submitted by the petitioner and to give a finding if the seized cash is accounted for or not. If unaccounted for, amount for tax liability was required to be intimated. On the ground that this direction of the First Addl. Sessions Judge was contrary to law, the IT Department has filed a petition before this Court under S. 482 of CrPC being MCrC No. 2310 of 2003 and stay has been granted by this Court on 7th April, 2003 and the matter is sub judice before this Court. Consequently, the investigation directed by the Addl. District Judge had been stayed and the petitioner contends that he is being harassed unnecessarily for the last 8 years and the proceedings are not coming to an end. The IT Department is not concluding the proceedings in the matter and the petitioner is being harassed due to the delay. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, this petition is filed for quashing the proceedings initiated by the IT Department under S. 132A and in support of this contention, reliance is placed to the law laid down in the case of CIT vs. Vindhya Metal Corporation & Ors. (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 495 : (1997) 5 SCC 321.