Mahesh Jagbandhu Roy vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes

PDF · subscribers
WP/218/2022HC Madhya Pradesh17 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU2 pages
For Petitioner: Satya Prakash MishraFor Respondent: Advocate General
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur held that it could not assume jurisdiction over the cause of action raised in the writ petition. This was because the seizure had taken place in Ratlam, but the case was presently pending in Mumbai, following its transfer under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the petitioner's case was being conducted under the jurisdiction of the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai. Consequently, the bench at Jabalpur was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the matter. The court did not decide on the merits of the seizure or the petitioner's claim for return of gold and compensation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahesh Jagbandhu Roy, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The petition was primarily against the seizure of gold by the Government Railway Police (GRP), Ratlam, on July 12, 2017. This seizure subsequently led to the issuance of a requisition under Section 132-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's grievance was that no proceedings had taken place after the requisition, leaving him in a state of uncertainty. He sought the return of the seized gold and compensation. The Income Tax Department informed the court that the petitioner's case had been transferred under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act to the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai, by an order dated June 27, 2019, and the case was pending there.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition concerning the seizure of gold and subsequent proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the case has been transferred to Mumbai. The assessee-petitioner argued that he was in a state of uncertainty due to the lack of further proceedings after the seizure and requisition, and sought the return of seized gold and compensation. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, contended that the case had been transferred to Mumbai under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was pending before the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai. The revenue's submission implied that the present bench lacked jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132-A,Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 218 of 2022 Between:- MAHESH JAGBANDHU ROY S/O SHRI JAGBANDHU ROY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO-2401, C-WING, SAI MANNAT SOCIETY, SECTOR-34-A, NEAR BHAGWAN HOTEL, NAVI MUMBAI, DISTRICT-RAIGARH (MAHARASHTRA) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI S.P. MISHRA - ADVOCATE) AND 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL (M.P.) THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION 3. THE DIRECTOR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (INVESTIGATION WING), AAYKAR BHAWAN RESIDENCY AREA, WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (M.P.) 4. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (INVESTIGATION), AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHARATPURI, UJJAIN (M.P.) 5. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION GRP, DISTRICT RATLAM (M.P.) .....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 & 3 BY SHRI SANJAY LAL - ADVOCATE) This petition coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU passed the following: 1 (SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE ORDER Present petition has been filed by an assessee of the Income Tax primarily against seizure of certain quantity of gold by GRP, Ratlam (M.P.) on 12.07.2017, which thereafter led to issuance of a requisition u/S.132-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that no proceeding thereafter has taken place and the petitioner is in a state of uncertainty which allegedly gives cause to petitioner to seek return of the seized gold and compensation. 3 . Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department has filed I.A. No.4751/2022 accompanied by certain letters including letter dated 15.03.2022 of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-I, Indore (M.P.), which reveals that after proceedings u/S.132-A, case of the assessee-petitioner was transferred u/S.127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to DCIT Central Circle -1 (3), Mumbai by order dated 27.06.2019 under whose jurisdiction the case is presently being conducted. 4 . From the aforesaid, it is obvious that in view of seizure having taken place at Ratlam and case being presently pending at Mumbai, this Bench at Jabalpur cannot assume jurisdiction over the cause of action raised herein. 5 . As prayed for, this petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate Bench/Court. 6. No cost. DV

2 Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2022.06.21 10:09:32 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →