Nemichandnahar v. Commissionerofincometax&Others

rNa; mTHEHm“$0URTOFJUQI‘mTUF%-CHH$TTI$39RH TBM$$PUR(CHI’QQTTNG9RH).F;‘gLE2C-V0Cy?“w.PnNo.200;‘%\/(l)NEMICHQNDN§HAR,QGED64YERRS,8/0.“$HRICHUNNILN,NAHQRBEQ88LE.I9.Ewrmtii§z~WEAQM.N.&E&E§*Ht1.aL;aMLXaw§&§aBM:~QLJEQ.(2)SMTnswARoopBalNAHQR,aaED62VEQRS,wfo.SHRINEMICHQNDNAHQR,EEQERLEIQBE3§§HL$£§A”L1.~.b1.x;-IEaDl§EQB.IA»&aL~QX;XQ*EaQQ$H:NQQBQWTHROUGHQTTORNEYSSHRIN.C.NQHQR,8/0..$HRICHUNNILQLNAHARMALQVIY§NQGARwDURG3;“MLEE.I£ILQ?J£§E§J.'“aVERSUS COMML§§L0NEROF£N00L’1Ewlaxa,”EB?”§§§QILQ§AWQHaaIlL§§&&tiW;EQLEQEm:_.LQ:.QLaQQLlLQHaL:MD,£BE,QIQB-QEwiEQQ E-I9.>$*W;§EE§ILQ££IL0NI a”EELEQE~£Q:~Q.~.LQEEQIXJS0MfrjL§§£Q&EEwD.E...l.§QLEMEWI&£;..QJ;£§§k§w:M§til.gQL-kQ£§ll;~,;m~QQEEQwLQgQgLINCUMEWWOFFLCERa WWQ“1*MQ&Q§QB&BQ&ML&:§1«EQLEQEm:_.LQ:.QLaQQLlLQHaL:MD,£BE,QIQB-QEwiEQQ E-I9.>$*W;§EE§ILQ££IL0NI a”EELEQE~£Q:~Q.~.LQEEQIXJS0MfrjL§§£Q&EEwD.E...l.§QLEMEWI&£;..QJ;£§§k§w:M§til.gQL-kQ£§ll;~,;m~QQEEQwLQgQgLINCUMEWWOFFLCERa WWQ“1*MQ&Q§QB&BQ&ML&:§1« @M‘J’v' ® HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPURa aSINGLEBENCH:HON‘BLESHRIJUSTICESAN-JAYK.AGRAWAL WritxPetitionNo.942of2001 PETITIONER NemiChandNahar &another RESPONDENTS VERSUS CommissionerofIncomeTax&others WR ITPETITIONN27OFTHECONSTITUTIONOF ‘ShriSCVerma,counselforthepe‘Tax.ShriAmit ,Choudh‘ary,’L’-‘”,StandingCoun '’R'DER 5.03.2015) Thepetitioner‘,eve filed,thispetitionquestioning‘‘-‘.’o3.2001(Annexure‘‘-‘.’o3.2001(Annexuretheorders9P/1)and15.05.2001(AnnexureP/2)issuedbyrespondentsand15.05.2001(AnnexureP/2)issuedbyrespondentsandalsoseekingmandamusdirectingtherespondentstogivecredittothepetitionersforRs . 22 , 89 , 000/—andgivecredittothepetitionersforRs . 22 , 89 , 000/—andRs. 3, 30; OOO/—towardsadvancetax.The, petitionershavealsosoughtreliefthattherespondentsbedirectedtoreleasethevaluableswithoutanybankguarantee.havealsosoughtreliefthattherespondentsbedirectedtoreleasethevaluableswithoutanybankguarantee. Attheoutset,learnedcounselappearingforthepetitionerswouldsubmitthatoutofreliefsclaimedinthiswritpetitiononlyreliefNo.7-bsurvivesfor 2 considerationvandassuchreliefNos.7(a),(c)and7(d)neednotbeconsideredasthepetitionershavealreadyreceivedbackthegoldandvaluablearticles. ItisacaseofthepetitionersthatraidwasconductedintheresidentialandofficepremisesofthepetitionerscompanyandsearchandseizureoperationunderSection132oftheIncomeTaxAct(forshort,theAct)wascarriedoutbytheIncomeionalDirectorofI”e‘Tax(investigation)rolnik11.11.1997toTw’ere__14. 11.1997and ”gold,”[cash]andjeweleryseizedfromthem.I t 3teaseofthepetitiénersthatvideorderda’_11.1997(AnnexureP/4),the‘SunilGuptai.e.InCOmeTaXd[irected]PresidentM/sdsMetals&EngineersLtd.,Ghugus(forshort,theLyodkkcolnpany)thatsearchisbeingconductedintheres1dentia1aswellasofficepremisesofthepetitioners,andtherefore,thecreditbalanceofpetitionersbenotreleasedinfavourofpetitioners.Thereafter,statementofSunilGupta,DGMofsaidLyodcompanywasrecordedon11.11.1997in whichtheofficerofsaidLyodcompanyhasclearlystatedthatpetitioner'scompanyhavecreditbalanceofRs . 22 , 75,[200/—and]otherbalanceofRs.3,23,400/—intheiraccount.ItisfurthercaseofthepetitionersthatthoughthereaftertheIncomeTaxauthoritiesrecoveredRs . 8 , 29,[000/-]fromthesaid LyodcompanywhichistaxliabilityofthebuttheamountofRs . 22 , 75 , 200/-&petitioners3,23,400/—havebeenillegallywithheldbythesaidLyodcompanyunauthori[zedly][ .] LearnedcounselappearingforthepetitionerswouldfurthersubmitthatsinceonthedirectionissuedunderSection133—AoftheAct,anamountofRs.22,89,000/—andRS.3,30,000/—waswithheldbythendtherefore,theusforgivingaxofsuchamOunt[.] 0nthecounselappearingappearingforthee.spondents—IncomeTax wouldsubmitLill.11.l997thatvidelatedonlyrequestwasmadetothePreSie,nt3’“‘o’fsaidLyodcompanynottoreleaseanyamountassearchandseizureoperationwasunderprogressandfinalassessmentunderSection158—BCwascompletedon26.11.1999andpursuanttowhichanamountofRs . 8 , 29 , 000/—wasrecoveredfromtheLyodcompanyastaxliabilityandthesaidLyodcompanyhasdisclaimedfurtheroutstandingamountoftherefore,itcannotbeheldthatpetitioners,areentitledforanycreditofthepetitionersaforesaidamountasclaimed. 6. 4 LearnedcounselappearingforthepetitionerswouldfurthersubmitthatsinceonthedirectionissuedunderSection133—AoftheAct,anamountofRs.22,89,000/—andRS.3,30,000/—waswithheldbythendtherefore,theusforgivingaxofsuchamOunt[.] 0nthecounselappearingappearingforthee.spondents—IncomeTax wouldsubmitLill.11.l997thatvidelatedonlyrequestwasmadetothePreSie,nt3’“‘o’fsaidLyodcompanynottoreleaseanyamountassearchandseizureoperationwasunderprogressandfinalassessmentunderSection158—BCwascompletedon26.11.1999andpursuanttowhichanamountofRs . 8 , 29 , 000/—wasrecoveredfromtheLyodcompanyastaxliabilityandthesaidLyodcompanyhasdisclaimedfurtheroutstandingamountoftherefore,itcannotbeheldthatpetitioners,areentitledforanycreditofthepetitionersaforesaidamountasclaimed. 6. 4 Havingheardlearnedcounselforthepartiesandhavingperusedthedocuments,thefollowingfacts wouldemerge: °That,byorderdated11.11.1997,theIncomeTaxauthoritiesrequestedthePresidentofLyodcompanynottoreleaseanycreditbalancetothe‘petitioners.TaxauthoritiesrequestedthePresidentofLyodcompanynottoreleaseanycreditbalancetothe‘petitioners. uptaofsaidLyodcompanyhasn,- creditbalanceofpetitionerscompanyintheirzro fthepetitioner,[s'][ company]erSection158BCoftheActandonlyanamountof'/‘—wa"sVrecoveredfromtheLyods’9thew saidLyodcompanyhassaidthatnofurtheramountofpetitionerscompanyareoutstandingtobepaidtothepetitioner'scompany. ThefactremainsthattheIncomeTaxDepartmenthasonlyrecoveredRs . 8 , 2 9 , 000/—fromtheLyodCompanywhichwasduetothepetitioner'scompanyand'thereaftertheyhaveclearlysaidthatnoamountisoutstanding/duetothepetitioner'scompanywiththem,andassuch,claimofthepetitioner'scompanythatcreditbegivenfortheamountofRs.22,89,000/—andRs . 3 , 30 , 000/—cannotbeacceptedasadmittedly, suchanamounthasnotbeenrecoveredfromtheLyodcompanybelongingtothepetitioner,andtherefore,nosuchdirectioncanbeissued'bythiscourtinwritjurisdictionunderSection226oftheConstitutionofIndia.However,ifthepetitionersfeelthatsuchanamounthasbeenwithheldbythesaidLyodcompany,then,thepetitionersarefreetoinstituteacivilsuitinaccordancewithlawforrecoveryofsaidamountf“otherwise,sucha'petitioner scompanyithLyodcompanyannotbedecidedwinthisproceedingthattooin‘Metals&EnginersLtd.,pondentinthispetition. Asafalloutandon‘sequenceofaforesaiddiscussion,thewritpeti‘ta s‘no' force,thesamedeservesto‘beandis__*dismissedwithaforesaidobservations .No[‘] Sdl- Saniay[K,][ Agrawal] Judge