BARBRIK PROJECT LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

CGHC010272862021

2026:CGHC:30363

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 208 of 2021 1 - Barbrik Project Limited Nehru Park Road, Surajpur, Police Station Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Pin - 497-229, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New

Delhi.,

District

New

Delhi,

Delhi 2 - The Director General Of Income - Tax (Investigation), Aaykar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M P), District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 3 - The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Aaykar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M P), District : Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh 4 - The Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1, Income-Tax Office, Mahima Comlex, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Amit Chaudhari, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO

2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 17.07.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to call for relevant records of the respondents for its kind perusal. (ii) to direct the respondents to release seized cash forthwith along with interest under section 132B(4) of the Act from the date immediately following expiry of the period of 120 days from the date on which the last day of the authorization for search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A was executed till the date of passing order giving effect to order of ITSC i.e.04/09/2019. (iii) to direct respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum for subsequent period from 03/10/2019 till the date of release as directed in other similarly situated cases. (iv) to direct respondents to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of this petition for constraining the petitioner to re-approach the Hon'ble High Court. (v) to pass such other and/ or further order and/or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the course of a search conducted under Section 132 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961, the officers of the department seized cash amount to Rs.48,60,000/- from the possession of the petitioner. He would

3 contend that the petitioner approached the Settlement Commission, which, after adjudication, passed an order in favour of the petitioner. He would contend that the Assessing Officer, pursuant to order passed by the Commission, determined the refund of the excess amount paid by the petitioner and that excess amount has already been refunded. He would contend that the amount of Rs.48,60,000/- seized from the possession of the petitioner has not been refunded till date. He would contend that as final order has already been passed by the Settlement Commission on 4.9.2019 in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authorities are under obligation to refund the seized amount. He would contend that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No.5 claiming therein refund of seized amount and the said authority may be directed to decide it expeditiously within a stipulated time. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Having considered the fact that the dispute between the assessee and the Revenue has already been settled by the Settlement Commission vide its order dated 4.9.2019 but the amount of Rs.48,60,000/- seized from the possession of the petitioner has not been refunded, this petition at this juncture, is disposed of with

4 a direction reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No.5 within a period of 30 days and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide it strictly in accordance with law preferably, within a period of 60 days. The authority concerned shall decide the representation in light of the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 4.9.2019. 6) With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi