REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

GAJENDRA KUMAR BANTHIA Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GUJRAJ SAHAI V. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
BONOMALLY GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
SEWLAL DAGA V. CIT [REFERRED TO]
ANISMINIC LTD. V. FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
R. V. GOVERNOR OF BROXTON PRISON [REFERRED TO]
OMRITOLALL DEY [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARLAL JAIN V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SITA DEVI THAPA V. COMMANDANT,6TH BATTALION ASSAM RIFLES [REFERRED TO]
HOMI RUSTOMJI PARDIVALA V. SUB-INSPECTOR BAIG [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSUL ISLAM V. GOVT. OF TRIPURA [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM GOVINDJI HALAI VS. B M DESAI ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
B RAMACHANDRA RAO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUJARAT II AHMEDABAD VS. KURBAN HUSSAIN IBRAHIMJI MITHIBORWALA [REFERRED TO]
JOLLY GEORGE VARGHESE VS. BANK OF COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
S N MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MAHMED AKHTAR HUSEIN ALIAS KADAR BHATTI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI NARAIN ANAND PRAKASH VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDAR BAJAJ VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER A WARD [REFERRED TO]
RAMA DEVI AGARWALLA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DEVI SARAOGI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER E WARD [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF MALABAR V. ERIMMAL EBRAHIM,HAJEE [REFERRED TO]
K.T.THOMAS V. CIT,1988 173 ITR 283 [REFERRED TO]
ANTONITTO VS. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
HARI PRASAD AGARWALLA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
NIRENDRA KUMAR BOSE VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release Jitendra Kumar Banthia, the father of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu"), who is said to have been detained in civil prison by respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the relevant rules contained in the Second Schedule appended thereto.

(2.) The detenu has been carrying on the business of jute and distributorship in cinematographic films. Allegedly because of losses suffered by the detenu, he could not pay his income-tax dues to the extent of a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs and odd. It is not disputed that the detenu who was being assessed under the provisions of the said Act, even did not file his income-tax returns after 1986 allegedly on the ground that he did not have taxable income. On February 23, the detenu was arrested and on that date itself he was sent to Alipore Central Jail by respondent No. 2 purportedly in the exercise of his powers under the provision of Rule 76 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The petitioner has contended that the detenu is not a defaulter or deemed defaulter. He has no means to pay the tax liabilities. In any event, the mandatory procedures relating to arrest and detention of a defaulter had not been complied with before directing his detention.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition which has been affirmed by one, Dilip Kumar Chowdhury who is the Tax Recovery Officer has been filed wherein it is stated that all the requirements for passing the order of arrest and detention of the father of the petitioner have been complied with. The respondents have also produced before us the records of the matter.

Click here to view full judgment.

GAJENDRA KUMAR BANTHIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address