PRABHLEEN SINGH PAINTAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

PDF · subscribers

WP/398/2021HC BombayHCBM05002849202106 April 2022Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. SONAK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. N. LADDHA3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner agreed that the relief concerning the whereabouts of the seized cash was worked out since the information was disclosed by the respondent. Regarding the second prayer for crediting the seized cash with interest, the Court agreed with the revenue's submission. The Court held that this was a matter the petitioner needed 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 the release of the amount by making a representation. The petitioner was also granted liberty to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority concerning the second prayer. The petition was disposed of with these clarifications and liberties, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prabhleen Singh Paintal, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa seeking directions to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, and another respondent. The petitioner requested a report detailing the whereabouts of seized cash from the date of seizure until the present, and alternatively, a direction to credit the seized cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the seizure date (24.07.2007) until realization. An affidavit was filed by the Income Tax Department stating that the seized amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was deposited in a Punjab National Bank account on 25th July 2007, and a Panchanama was prepared. The petitioner acknowledged that the whereabouts of the seized cash were disclosed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction under a writ of mandamus to submit detailed reports illustrating the whereabouts of the seized cash from the date of seizure till the present date? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction under a writ of mandamus to credit the seized cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of seizure (24.07.2007) till realization in their favour? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner sought directions for the disclosure of seized cash whereabouts and for the credit of the seized amount with interest. The petitioner agreed that the relief regarding the whereabouts of the seized cash was worked out once disclosed. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its affidavit, disclosed that the seized amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was deposited in a bank account on 25th July 2007. The revenue argued that the claim for crediting the seized cash with interest was a matter to be pursued before the authorities/courts where the amount was presently deposited, as the petitioner was assessed to tax in Goa, having been assessable to tax in New Delhi at the relevant time.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

4-WP 398-21.DOC Amrut IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.398 OF 2021 PRABHLEEN 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.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) along with interest at 18% p.a. 4-WP 398-21.DOC From the 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. 4-WP 398-21.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 →