Skip to content


M. A. Ramzana Vs. Director of Inspection and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtJammu and Kashmir High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.P. No. 226 of 1981
Reported in(1982)28CTR(J& K)269
AppellantM. A. Ramzana
RespondentDirector of Inspection and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....be stayed in the matter. we further direct that such of the seized goods as are entered in the account books shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing security in the amount of value of these goods as entered in the account books. the security shall be in the form of immovable property to the satisfaction of the registrar of this court. the value, as entered in the account books shall calculated by the ito concerned and intimated to the registrar within a period of ten days. the registrar will enter his satisfaction on the security bond only after hearing the counsel for the respondents. we also direct that such of the goods as are not entered in the account books shall be retained by the respondents but they will associate with themselves as representative of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Written objection filed in Shah Sons cases have been adopted in this case. We have heard further arguments in the stay matter. We direct that further proceedings u/sub-s (5) of s. 132 of IT Act shall be stayed in the matter. We further direct that such of the seized goods as are entered in the account books shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing security in the amount of value of these goods as entered in the account books. The security shall be in the form of immovable property to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court. The value, as entered in the account books shall calculated by the ITO concerned and intimated to the Registrar within a period of ten days. The Registrar will enter his satisfaction on the security bond only after hearing the counsel for the respondents. We also direct that such of the goods as are not entered in the account books shall be retained by the respondents but they will associate with themselves as representative of the petitioner in order to keep those goods in a safe condition and allow such representative periodical inspections, say, once in a fortnight. This order shall be operative till the final disposal of this writ petition '.

2. The Department has found it difficult to implement the order in letter and spirit as is evident from the report of the Department submitted to the Registrar through their counsel.

3. I have heard learned Counsels for the parties. The difficulty in the case appear to have arisen by the use of expression 'entered in the account books' by the Division Bench. Whereas, according to Z. A. Shah, the intention of the Division Bench in making the order was that the seized goods, if 'entered' in the 'books' of the firm, be released in its favour on furnishing security in the amount of value of those goods as 'entered' in the books of the Firm, according to Mr. Raina, however only such of the seized goods were recorded to be released in favour of the petitioner which had been 'duly accounted for', in the 'account books' of the Firm.

4. Keeping in view the provisions of s. 132(5) of the IT Act the proceeding under which had been stayed by the Division Bench, it is manifest that the intention of the Bench in making the order on 21-5-1981 was that such of the goods which are 'entered' int eh record of the Firm shall be released on security being furnished by the Firm to the extent of the value of the goods recorded in the books. The Division Bench used the expression 'entered' in the order and not 'accounted for'. There is a vast difference between goods 'duly entered' in the records and goods 'duly accounted for'. Where only a look at the record can establish whether the goods are entered therein or not, it would require 'investigation' to find out whether goods have been duly 'accounted for'. In view of the stay of proceedings u/s. 132(5) of the Act, such an investigation was barred. Therefore, the Department was not justified in confusing the expression 'entered' with the expression 'account books'. Again, the expression 'account book' are used by the Bench is not an expression of art or an expression of technical precision. This expression was used in a wider sense and implied the 'records of assessee'. The Department was, therefore, again not right in insisting on the entry in the 'account books' as a pre-condition for release of goods. As long as the goods were entered in any of the seized record of the firm, their release on the terms and conditions stipulated by the Bench was plainly required.

5. Thus I am of the opinion, the intention of the Division Bench in making the order as are entered in the records of the firm should be released in favour in favour of the firm on the terms and conditions stipulated in the order of Division Bench.

6. I, therefore, direct that in the light of the observations made above, the order of the Division Bench dt. 21-5-1981 be complied with by the Department on the terms and conditions contained in the order. The petitioner shall approach the Registrar for further action in terms of the Division Bench order.

7. The C.M.P. is disposed of accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //