Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 884 1985 SLD 884 (1985) 151 ITR 9
Madras High Court
30847
S. NATARAJAN, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

N. Ramakrishnan

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 132 of the income-tax act, 1961-Search and seizure-General-Following search in his premises, which led to seizure of a paltry sum, petitioner filed writ petition on the ground that search had caused pain and anguish and unnecessary publicity-While admitting writ, court granted injunction against said search-Whether such injunction could be vacated on ground that hands of revenue to proceed with investigation in accordance with law were fettered-Held, on facts, yes. Facts On the basis of some information, the revenue conducted a search in the premises of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no incriminating document or material nor unaccounted cash or jewels were seized and all that was seized was a paltry sum of Rs. 800 odd. On the ground that the unwarranted search had caused not only pain and anguish to him, but had also caused undesirable publicity, the petitioner filed a writ petition and while admitting the writ petition, the Court had granted an interim injunction. Thereafter, the department filed application praying for the order of interim injunction to be vacated on the grounds that the hands of the department to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law might not be fettered. The petitioner, on the other hand, opposed the prayer on the ground that any order vacating the already granted injunction would expose him to harassment at the hands of the revenue. Held The Court was not concerned with the merits of the case. It might be that the petitioner's grievance that the search of his premises was unfair might be true. But, what has to be taken into consideration in each case is the larger question whether the hands of the investigating agency can be fettered by an order of this Court on the ground that they have used their powers in excess of the rights conferred under the Income-tax Act 1961. Undoubtedly, the revenue is entitled under law to conduct searches and to proceed with their investigation and enquiry on the materials gathered by them, If the investigative powers of authorities like the revenue are restrained by orders of injunction, the investigation of cases themselves will come to a dead stop and that will not be…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492