Bhagwandas Tharwani vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/4273/2026HC Madhya Pradesh22 June 2026Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
For Petitioner: Sapan Usrethe[P-1]
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the "Reference" facility in the ERP is not intended for filing documents on which parties seek to place reliance. These documents cannot be treated as part of the record maintained by the High Court under the M.P. High Court Rules, nor can they be regarded as forming part of the writ petition or the reply, as they were neither supported by an affidavit nor certified as true copies. Consequently, the petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation along with the aforesaid documents before the competent authority. The respondents were directed to consider and decide the fresh representation in accordance with law. With this liberty and direction, the writ petition was disposed of. No specific finding was made on the return of the seized material itself, as the matter was remitted for a fresh representation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhagwandas Tharwani, filed a writ petition seeking the return of material seized during a search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 4, 1999. The petitioner had previously submitted two representations to the respondents. The respondents stated they did not possess details of the seized material. The petitioner then uploaded 18 documents to the "Reference" section of the High Court's ERP. The Court noted that this section is not for filing reliance documents and that documents uploaded there cannot be treated as part of the record or the writ petition/reply as they lacked affidavits and certification.

What were the issues?

1. Whether documents uploaded in the "Reference" section of the High Court's ERP can be considered part of the official record or the writ petition/reply, and thus relied upon by the petitioner (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural rules of the High Court and the nature of the ERP facility). Assessee's contention: The petitioner implicitly sought to rely on these uploaded documents to support their claim for the return of seized material. Revenue's contention: The respondents did not possess details of the seized material. The Court itself observed that the "Reference" facility is not for filing documents on which parties seek to place reliance and that such documents cannot be treated as part of the record or the writ petition/reply due to lack of affidavit and certification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL ON THE 22nd OF JUNE, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 4273 of 2026 BHAGWANDAS THARWANI Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Sapan Usrethe - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta - Advocate for respondent No1. to 3. Shri Shubham Manchani Advocate for respondent. ORDER Per: Vivek Rusia, Acting Chief Justice The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to return the material seized during the search conducted on 04.03.1999 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Prior to filing the present writ petition, the petitioner submitted two representations to the respondents. 3. Upon notice, the respondents filed their reply stating that they do not possess the details of the material/inventories seized from the premises of the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner has uploaded 18 documents in the "Reference" section of the ERP of the High Court. These documents 1 WP-4273-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:43377 Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 6/24/2026 4:51:02 PM Signature Not Verified

(VIVEK RUSIA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE were not annexed to the representations filed along with the writ petition as annexures, as the petitioner was required to submit typed copies thereof. 4. The "Reference" facility in the ERP is not intended for filing documents on which the parties seek to place reliance in the proceedings. It is merely a facility provided for uploading judgments, written submissions, and other documents intended to facilitate arguments on behalf of the petitioner or the respondent, as the case may be, and to avoid the necessity of physical filing and scanning of such documents. 5. The documents uploaded in the Reference section cannot be treated as part of the record maintained by the High Court under the M.P. High Court Rules. Nor can such documents be regarded as forming part of the writ petition or the reply, as they are neither supported by an affidavit nor certified as true copies by the learned counsel. 6. In the circumstances, the petitioner is granted liberty to submit a fresh representation along with the aforesaid documents before the competent authority. Upon receipt thereof, the respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Praveen

2 WP-4273-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:43377 Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 6/24/2026 4:51:02 PM Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →