(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Writ Petition No. 4127 of 1994 (Ramjilal Jagannath v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Raipur) and Writ Petition No. 1803 of 1993 (Kailash Chand v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jabalpur).
(2.) THE facts in a nutshell for disposal of these two petitions are that in a raid made in the premises of the petitioners' firms and their partners of Writ Petition No. 4127 of 1994 between January 9, 1992 to January 13, 1992, cash amounting to Rs. 3,50,000 was seized. THE petitioners moved different applications for adjustment of the seized amount towards the advance tax for the financial year 1991-92, the relevant assessment year being 1992-93. THE respondents did not appropriate the said amount towards the payment of the advance tax, therefore, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 4127 of 1994, seeking a direction against the respondents that they be asked to adjust the said amount of Rs. 3,50,000 towards the advance tax.
(3.) SHRI Sapre, learned counsel for the Revenue, submits that proceedings under Sections 132, 132A and 132B are independent proceedings and cannot be clubbed with the liability of paying the advance tax. According to him, unless the liability is found or decided under Section 132(5) of the Act, one is not entitled to say that the seized amount be adjusted towards the advance tax because by that time nobody knows what would be left for adjustment or refund. According to him, unless the proceedings under Section 132(5) are completed, the provisions of Section 132B would not come into play. His further submission is that the assessee is required to pay the advance tax in accordance with the provisions of law and by no stretch of imagination the seized amount can be deemed to be paid amount. His further submission is that if ultimately it is found that the amount was wrongly retained and the amount was more than the existing liability, then under the provisions of law, the petitioner would be entitled to statutory interest.