Legal Case Summary

Case Details
Case ID d44ca4aa-c565-4013-b5ea-d5cf539f5ccc
Body View case body.
Case Number
Decision Date
Hearing Date
Decision The court held that after the issuance of an order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner has a statutory remedy available to file an objection under section 132(11) if they feel aggrieved. Therefore, the court concluded that it is not appropriate to grant relief through a writ petition at this stage. The present writ petition was rejected in limine, as the petitioner must first utilize the statutory remedy provided under the law.
Summary In the case of Smt. Punam Tandon v. Director of Inspection, the Allahabad High Court addressed the procedural aspects related to search and seizure under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court examined whether a petitioner has the right to seek relief through a writ petition after an order is passed under section 132(5) of the Act. The judges, V.K. Khanna and Om Prakash, ruled that the petitioner must first pursue the statutory remedy available under section 132(11) if they are aggrieved by the order. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory processes before seeking judicial intervention, ensuring that the legal framework is respected and utilized appropriately. This case highlights the procedural rights of taxpayers and the obligations of the authorities under the Income-tax Act, reinforcing the need for compliance with established legal protocols. The ruling serves as a significant reference for future cases involving search and seizure under tax laws, emphasizing the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the court for relief.
Court Allahabad High Court
Entities Involved Not available
Judges V.K. Khanna, Om Prakash
Lawyers V. Gulati, Bharatji Agarwal
Petitioners Smt. Punam Tandon
Respondents Director of Inspection
Citations 1989 SLD 2217, (1989) 176 ITR 405
Other Citations Not available
Laws Involved Income-tax Act, 1961
Sections 132, 132(5), 132(11)