HARBHAJAN SINGH PAINTAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the petitioner's counsel agreed that the relief sought in prayer clause (a) regarding the whereabouts of the seized cash was satisfied, as the affidavit disclosed the deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- in a Punjab National Bank account. Regarding prayer clause (b), concerning the credit of the seized cash and interest, the Court agreed with the revenue's submission. The Court held that this was a matter for the petitioner to pursue before the authorities or courts where the amount was presently deposited. The Court clarified that it had not prevented the petitioner from approaching the competent authority and that the petitioner was free to avail of any rights for seeking release of the amount by making a representation. The petitioner was also granted liberty to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority concerning prayer clause (b). The petition was disposed of with these clarifications and liberties, with no order as to costs.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Harbhajan Singh Paintal, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa seeking directions to the Income Tax Department. The petitioner requested the authorities to submit detailed reports on the whereabouts of seized cash from the date of seizure until the present. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction to credit the seized cash of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with 18% interest per annum from the date of seizure (24.07.2007) until realization. An affidavit was filed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, stating that the seized amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was deposited in a Personal Deposit Account of the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) in Punjab National Bank, Panaji, on 25th July 2007, immediately after the search. The Panchanama was also prepared on the same date.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction under writ of mandamus for the Respondent to submit detailed reports illustrating the whereabouts of the seized cash from the date of seizure till the present date. This issue turns on the general principles of writ jurisdiction and the duty of authorities to provide information regarding seized assets. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction under writ of mandamus for the Respondent to credit the seized cash of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of seizure (24.07.2007) till realization in favour of the petitioner. This issue concerns the procedure for claiming seized amounts and any accrued interest. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner sought the above directions. The petitioner's counsel agreed that the relief in terms of prayer clause (a) was worked out as the whereabouts of the seized cash were disclosed. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, argued that the relief in terms of prayer clause (b) should be pursued before the authorities/courts where the amount presently stands deposited, as the petitioner was assessed to tax in New Delhi at the relevant time, though now assessed in Goa.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
5-WP 399-21.DOC Amrut IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.399 OF 2021 HARBHAJAN SINGH PAINTAL … Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI & ANR. …Respondents
Mr. Vishnu Langawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for respondent No.
Ms. Amira Razaq, Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No.
CORAM: M. S. SONAK & R. N. LADDHA,JJ DATE :
P.C.:
Heard Mr. Vishnu Langawat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Razaq, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner, by instituting this petition, had sought for the following reliefs:- “(a) Pass a direction under the writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to submit detailed reports so as to illustrate the whereabouts of the seized cash from the date of seizure of the cash till the present date; and/or (b) Pass a direction under the writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to credit the seized cash of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) along with interest at 18% p.a. from the 5-WP 399-21.DOC date of seizure (24.07.2007) till realization in favour of the petitioner.”
In the context of relief in terms of prayer clause (a) above, Mr. M. Raviteja, Deputy Director of Income Tax in the office of the Principal Director of Income Tax at Panaji has filed an affidavit and has stated the following at paras 8 and 9. “8. I say that the records show that the seized amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was deposited by the Authorised Officers immediately after the search on 25th July, 2007 in Punjab National Bank, Panaji – Branch to the credit of the Personal Deposit Account No.1502002100022157 of the Director of Income Tax (investigation) 1- New Delhi, in accordance with law.
I say that on 25th July, 2007, the Panchanama was prepared by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv), Panaji.”
Mr. Langawat, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees that since the whereabouts of the seized cash is disclosed, the relief in terms of prayer clause (a) stands worked out.
In so far as the relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is concerned, we agree with Ms. Razaq that this is a matter which the petitioner will have to pursue before the Authorities/Courts where the amount presently stands deposited. In the return filed before us, it is clearly stated that the petitioner now assessed to tax in Goa since the petitioner was assessable to tax in New Delhi at the relevant time. 5-WP 399-21.DOC
Mr. Langawat however, states that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to make representation to the competent authority at New Delhi concerning the prayer clause (b) above. At this stage, there is no question of grant of any liberty because at no stage this Court has prevented the petitioner from approaching the competent authority. If the petitioner has any rights for seeking release of such amount merely by making representation, the petitioner is free to avail of such rights.
The petitioner is also at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority concerning the prayer clause (b).
With the aforesaid clarification and the liberties, the petition is disposed of. There shall be no order for costs. R. N. LADDHA,J M. S. SONAK, J TARI AMRUT NAGESH
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
