Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
Arihant Jewellers – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I – Respondent
ORDER :
Per : Justice Vivek Rusia
The present three writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise interconnected questions of facts and law arising out of the seizure of jewelry in 37 consignments on 23.10.2023 by the Static Surveillance Team, (SST) Ratlam by the District Election Officer during the enforcement period of Model Code of Conduct during the Madhya Pradesh State Assembly Elections and thereafter proceedings initiated under the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (in short 'the IT Act') and the consequential action taken by the respondent authorities.
02. Since the factual matrix and legal questions involved are substantially common and interlinked across all the writ petitions, with the joint request of the parties, they are analogously heard and are being disposed of together by this common judgment.
03. Admittedly, the petitioners have sought common relief in these three writ petitions and there is no conflict of interest between them. There are no allegations and counter-allegations against each other.
They all agree on a series of actions taken by the respondents.
FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF
04. On 23.10.2023, during the enforcement of the Model Code of C
Seizure of goods must adhere to procedural safeguards unless linked to electoral misconduct; ownership must be substantively established before neutral parties.
Seizure of stock-in-trade under the Income Tax Act requires clear evidence of undisclosed income; mere suspicion is insufficient.
Seizure under the Income Tax Act should be conducted with due care and caution, and should not be based solely on suspicion. The seizure of goods should be justified and in accordance with the provis....
Seizure of cash without following prescribed procedures is illegal, and transfer to the Income Tax Department without an FIR is unauthorized.
The court ruled that stock-in-trade cannot be seized under Section 132(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless proper justification is provided by the assessee.
Point of Law : If there is no valid order of assessment and no demand for income tax, Revenue cannot indirectly keep money on plea that there will be a demand, and, money should be allowed to be kept....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish prima facie evidence that seized goods are part of the stock-in-trade, as per Section 132(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Ac....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
