ALAY RAKESH SHAH vs. DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX

Petitioner   is  a  member   of  one   Hindu   Undivided Family ('HUF' for short) i.e. Rakesh K. Shah HUF.  He has   prayed   that   the   respondents   i.e.   the   Union   of India and Income Tax department be directed to pay to him a sum of Rs.33,51,29,256/­.   This prayer arises in following background.

According   to   the   petitioner,   a   search   was carried   out   by   the   Income   Tax   authorities   at   the premises   of   one   Shah   Enterprises,   a   proprietary concern   of   Keyur   P.   Shah.     According   to   the petitioner, the search warrant of authorization dated 29.11.2000 was issued in the name of i) Shah Finance; ii)Keyur P. Shah and iii)Rakesh K.Shah.  These three persons/entities   had   no   concern   with   either   Shah Enterprise or Rakesh K. Shah HUF.  Despite this, the C/SCA/13477/2018 ORDER authorities   seized   several   cheques   belonging   to Rakesh   K.   Shah   HUF   drawn   on   Catholic   Syrian   Bank ('the bank' for short).  On account of such seizure the cheques could not be deposited within the valid period.     Subsequently,   proceedings   under   section 158BC and 158BD of  the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'   for   short)   was   carried   out   against   various assessees.   According to the petitioner, in absence of any search authorization against  Rakesh K. Shah HUF, the documents and valuable articles could not have   been   seized,   nor   could   the   said   assessee   be subjected to proceedings under section 158BC of the Act.  Despite various efforts by the Karta of the HUF Rakesh K. Shah, the department did not release the cheques.     The   petitioner   would   point   out   that initially   complaint   was   filed   before   the   Consumer District Redressal Commission, Gujarat, against the bank.   The Commission however, held that the remedy of the assessee did not lie against the bank but only against  the   Income   Tax   department.     Appeal   filed against   such   judgment   of   the   Commission   failed. Subsequently   also,   multiple   applications   and representations were made by the Karta of the HUF to C/SCA/13477/2018 ORDER the Income Tax department without any success.  Case of   the   petitioner   therefore   is   that   due   to   such illegal   action   on   the   part   of   the   Income   Tax authorities in seizing the cheques of the HUF, huge amounts   were   lost   since   the   cheques   could   not   be deposited   in   time.     The   petitioner   has   therefore raised   multiple   claims   against   the   Income   Tax department   which   include   the   principal   amounts indicated in the cheques with interest computed at the rate of 18% per annum and also damages for such treatment meted out by the Income Tax department.

In our opinion, the petitioner cannot maintain this litigation.  The petitioner is a member of HUF. His   father  Rakesh   K.   Shah   was   a   Karta   of   HUF,   as stated in the petition, had taken appropriate steps at the relevant time to protect the interest of the HUF.  The cause of action arose way back in the year 2001. The petitioner has filed this petition in the year 2018 only on the ground that he was born in the year   1997   and   therefore   attained   majority   only recently.

The   Karta   of   the   HUF   having   initiated   the litigation and having persuade the remedies against C/SCA/13477/2018 ORDER the action of the Income Tax department, in absence of any allegations of misfeasance at the hands of the Karta,   a   member   of   the   HUF   individually   cannot restart   the   same   litigation.   The   law   does   not recognize multiple actions at the hands of different members of an HUF long many years after the cause of action had arisen.  One of the essential elements of maintaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution   of   India  which   pertains   to   Court's discretionary   powers   of   issuing   writs,   is   timely action at the ends of the petitioner.  The petitioner cannot file a writ petition 17 years later on the ground   that   he   only   recently   attained   majority. Essentially, the petitioner is taking up the cause for   and   on   behalf   of   the   HUF   and   not   in   his individual capacity.  The Karta of the family was at the helm of the affairs at the relevant time.   The petitioner   does   not   have   an   independent   right   to raise the grievances.

In the result, petition is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH