S/Oramnarayan .Agrawal,Agedabout 37 Years v. The Commissiongr

1"ni—^nm! IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURrc.G.vWRIT PETITION fTAX^ N0.^3OFZOtB fS.B.V ^' Akhilesh KumarAgrawal, PETITIONER,^/y•t8''^,»p>,^:<"sft"'>c? c\.y>\f....w^ff'-'Qet.--RESPQNDENTS1."2.3.4. S/oRamnarayan .Agrawal,agedabout 37 years, Proprietor of M/s.GoyalJuteUdyog,268,SamtaColony,Raipur,PoliceStationSaraswati Nagar, Civil and RevenueDistrict Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS The Commissiongr, IncomeTax,Raipur,Q'vilandRevenue Raipur (G.G.) Income Tax Officer 1(1),Raipur,Civil and Revenue District Raipur(C.G.) The Commissioner, Commer'cial Tax, Raipur,Civil andRevenue District Raipur(C.G.)Commercial Tax. Officer, Circle No.5,Raipur,CivilandRevenueDistrict Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UN-DER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA i.PARTICULARS OFTHE PETITIONER.-As given in the cause title.2.PARTICULARSOFTHERESPONDENTS.Asgiven in the cause title. te-: -7^ ^^r T<{WM^, wwww, hwwy, _...lQ^lr}^-[^/i-3]"^200 *(IHM! thqra» 3ilt^T 'VSV (ijc|I^«(<^) aiT^T^I^MfWIIW ^lftff SiI^Icn)<<^<i4ll "RFI^ff "cf 'f^3t ^^R.^WOT^rsTOW^raiRmsii^tS8 : Hon'D'e Shri iVlanlndra IVIc^ian snnvastava, J.1'5-no-3niti A>~'W*^-<..W1 »^Shrt iVI.K.Bhadun, counssiirortne petitloner/s.Shn Anana Dadana,counsjel tor resoondents 1 and 2.Shri. Rahui Tamaskar, Panifci Lawyer for the State / responaents 3 and4 on advance copy.Heard.This petition has Deenj!edDY the petitioner seenna to restral"respondents1 and 2 from takiijia any cosrcive actlon pursuant to notlcedated 01/08/13 (Anhexure P/5'lThe petltioner nas also prayed t'nat aa!rectlon mav aiso be issuea toIrespondents 3[and][ 4][ to][ immeaiateiy][ return]tn-s documents of the petitioner[iVhicn[nave][ Deen][ seszea][ ana][ in][ Tne][ custody]of respondents 3 and 4. Learned counssl for the p(ititloner contended that in a raid conductedDy responaenis 3 and 4, recorata^ and documents, concernln.q tne businesso? the petitioner, wers seized.F1ose aocuments ana records nave remainedin the custoay since iong ana tn$>y are not Deina reieases. A.Qsrieyea bythlsaction, the petitioner preferredwrit petltlon berore ihls Courr i.e. WP(T5No.6091/11 which was dism'ssetwrtn an observation tnat the petitioner mayavail remedy of revls!on and|may aiso maKe orayer a&out return ofaocurnentsintnerevisionotWinltiatinaseparateproceedings,aspermissioie in iaw.fne petitiojiinnor^er aid prefer a revision before respondent ^ ^ ^sr •<iww«,,vs-^w'w, I^TRry ri-c.......^>f..(7')..lM?..:...?.^>J.L3TFi.200 3n^'?i'ti°RT (' *w\vf<i\-i Tvm^i -^ TW Tfe^R Learned counssl for the p(ititloner contended that in a raid conductedDy responaenis 3 and 4, recorata^ and documents, concernln.q tne businesso? the petitioner, wers seized.F1ose aocuments ana records nave remainedin the custoay since iong ana tn$>y are not Deina reieases. A.Qsrieyea bythlsaction, the petitioner preferredwrit petltlon berore ihls Courr i.e. WP(T5No.6091/11 which was dism'ssetwrtn an observation tnat the petitioner mayavail remedy of revls!on and|may aiso maKe orayer a&out return ofaocurnentsintnerevisionotWinltiatinaseparateproceedings,aspermissioie in iaw.fne petitiojiinnor^er aid prefer a revision before respondent ^ ^ ^sr •<iww«,,vs-^w'w, I^TRry ri-c.......^>f..(7')..lM?..:...?.^>J.L3TFi.200 3n^'?i'ti°RT (' *w\vf<i\-i Tvm^i -^ TW Tfe^R fRITW ^B 311^1 TW Tfe^R Tfe^R^^atlgiisntgNo.3 on 14/05/12 wnicn include a for retum'or aocumems aiso buty prayertill date, tne revision Detition hasremalned pendlnfl.l.n the meantime, the inc^me tax autnority nas aiso issueo noiicesunder Section 143 i'2) of the inc|3me TaxAci, 1961 requiring the petrtioner tosubmjt necessary aetails and d4cuments whicn are not in possession of tnepeiitioner. vv'hen the petitioner was caHed to personaliy appear, this fact wasinformea to tne income tax autlrtQrltv[but][ the]petrtioner[apprensnas][ that][ for]want of submission of documl&nts, the respondent auihoritles may takelioner.coerclve stsps a.qaiRst tKe petflin SQ far as proceedings befors iheincome tax auihorities are con^erned, at the matter is sti'l present, pendingoefors OT tne autnorities.1 nepetitioner has 'oeen aTforaea an opponunityand nas aiso'been heard persodaliy D¥?he authonties.n!i aate, tnere is noirf^.'or^^l"lui ir 1uf< •d'lx- r^rn^r^>'i t|^il^i '.^1 nr b<^u't,l%-tt ?ir:t!^n ii-t;<^;|st the RetitiQner iaken by ihe income tax'herefore,)rity,to thsextent,thls petitjonis basedonmereapprenenston.rnererore, noipeci'lc directson is reauired to be issued toths Income tax authonnes.Hc}wever, it would De open Tor tne petitioner tosatisfy tne income tax authcjntles, tne reasons ror non-submission oraocuments.in so far as the grievance with regard to return of aocuments ,'s;oncerned, this Issue has aireapy been considered by ihis Court and tne wntpetition was dismissed and linerefore, tnis Coun, in tna secona round,c&nnotissueadirection toj therespondent authorities toreturn the 1 Xi-HC—78 3 f •^I^Kri'M, ®fl1<-l'|fi,fa<<'ll+i^<,,tA^('Tj)u,o.^3/c3V^ 200 200 *II*ICTI a>*iraiV^ 200 2003fi^i'cra?T ('^)3TI^I W R-)i<*TT8n 3TR?T s»i*iicfrWIIWdfCT 311^13Wfeqh'WRff <f fstCT tfSre^^aiRnan^rdocumenis o? the petitioner.However, consiaenn.q"iight nfooservations maae eanier byhis Court, the petitioner did prefer revisionbefore respondent No.3 whicNhas remainea pendino for more t»an onevear, the prayer appears to &|• qulte reasonabie.TherefQre, responaentNo.3 shouid decide revision as|eariy as possibie within an outer limit of 45davs from the date of receipt of copv of this order. A copy of this oraer Deplaced by ihe petitioner befonal! the authonties and mav aiso be piaceabefore t"e income tax autnoritvjThe petition i&accordlngly TinalSy aisposed off.^asta^'3Qsepa»?Aoha°^nd(a^ iight nf