| Case ID |
405b5798-d07e-4f85-8acf-cc6773904ac1 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 1999 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 22, 2001 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 21, 1999 |
| Decision |
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the income-tax authorities cannot impound books of account and documents during a survey conducted under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the impounding of documents was not permissible as the provisions of section 131(3) were improperly invoked. The order to impound was quashed, and the authorities were directed to return the documents to the petitioner. The ruling emphasized that the authorities must follow the statutory provisions and cannot act beyond their jurisdiction. The court found no evidence that the petitioner or its employees had evaded cooperation during the survey, thus invalidating the actions taken by the income-tax authorities. |
| Summary |
In the case of Maruti Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court addressed crucial issues regarding the power of income-tax authorities during surveys under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The central question was whether the authorities could impound documents during a survey conducted under section 133A. The court determined that such actions were not permissible, stressing the need for adherence to statutory guidelines. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper legal procedures and the limitations of authority in tax assessments. This case serves as a significant reference for taxpayers and legal practitioners regarding income tax surveys, reinforcing the principle that what cannot be done directly should not be accomplished indirectly. The court's decision reflects a commitment to uphold legal norms and protect taxpayer rights, making it a landmark ruling in tax law. Key terms include income tax, survey, legal authority, impoundment, statutory provisions, and taxpayer rights. |
| Court |
Rajasthan High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Anjay Kothari,
Sandeep Bhandawat
|
| Petitioners |
Maruti Mills (P.) Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Union of India
|
| Citations |
2001 SLD 2774,
(2001) 250 ITR 348
|
| Other Citations |
Dr. Vijay Pahwa v. Samir Mukhopadhyay, Dy. CIT [1995] 129 CTR (Cal.) 64,
N.K. Mohnot v. Dy. CIT [1995] 215 ITR 275/ 83 Taxman 238 (Mad.),
Gheru Lal Bal Chand v. ITO [1982] 137 ITR 190/ 10 Taxman 35 (Punj. & Har.),
United Chemical Agency v. R.K. Singh, ITO [1974] 97 ITR 14 (All.),
Sri Venkateshwara Tourist Home (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Director [1998] 233 ITR 736/ 101 Taxman 710 (Kar.),
Ram Saroop Pawan Kumar v. ITO [1980] 125 ITR 603 (Punj. & Har.),
Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh AIR 1979 SC 381,
Fox v. Bishop of Chester [1824] 2 B&C 635
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
133A,
131
|