Dismissed

V.P.Rasheed v. Union of India

Kerala HC7 Nov 2013WP(C)/25735/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the writ petition seeking release of seized computer and hard disks was premature. The seized items are books of account under the Income Tax Act, and respondents are entitled to retain them until the assessment order under Section 153 A or further approval under Section 132(8).

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without interference; the plea for release of seized documents was rejected as premature.

V.P.Rasheed Vs Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/16TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 25735 of 2013 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

V.P.RASHEED PROPRIETOR, E ORIENTAL TIMBERS, N.H BYE PASS EDAPPALLY, COCHIN - 24.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE

¶9

SMT.REKHA S

¶10

SRI.M.T.AJITH

¶11

SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARIAT BUILDING, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶14

2. JOINT DIRECTOR (INVESTIGATION) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ARYA BHANGI PINACLE, S.A.ROAD COCHIN - 682 020.

¶15

3. APPU JOSEPH JOSE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (INVESTIGATION) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, COCHIN - 682 031.

¶16

4. KRISHNAKANTH K., INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOZHIKODE - 670 101.

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) R2,R3,R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-112013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 25735 of 2013 (N)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P-1:	TRUE COPY OF THE PANJANAMA ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
EXT.P-2:	TRUE COPY OF THE PANJANAMA PREPARED FOR THE SEARCH IN RESIDENCE ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
EXT.P-3:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.10.13 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-4:	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATION DT.15.10.13
EXT.P-5:	TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM FOUND ON NEW INDIAN EXPRESS DATED 16.10.13
EXT.P-6:	TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA FOR THE RESIDENCE DATED 17.10.13 AND ITS ANNEXURES
EXT.P-7:	TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA FOR THE BUSINESS PREMISES
EXT.P-8:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE OF PROTEST DATED 18.10.13
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE LADY STAFF OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JFCM COURT II, ALUVA
EXT.P10	ANNEXURE A IN EXT.P2
EXT.P11	COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SHO , THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION
EXT.P12	COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER THAT CONTAINED EXT.R2(a)
EXT.P13	COPY OF REPLY DATED 25-10-2013
EXT.P14	COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE SENDING OF EXT.P13

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

ANNEXURE R2(A) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-10-2013

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

SMM

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶29

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶30

W.P.(C) No.25735 of 2013

¶31

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2013

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The plea of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to release the computer and hard disk seized from the business premises is premature. The computer and hard disks as well as the pen drive are books of account as defined under Section 2 (12 A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). Such electronic record is also a document as defined under Section 2(22 AA) of the Act.

¶34

The documents have been seized only on 8-10-2013 under Section 132 of the Act. Orders of assessment under Section 153 A of the Act are yet to follow. The respondents are entitled to retain the documents up to a period of thirty days from the date of order of assessment.

¶35

The documents can be retained for a longer time after obtaining approval from the authorities mentioned in Section 132(8) of the Act. The respondents contend that action against the petitioner under the Act is in contemplation. It will be premature therefore to release the documents at this juncture as sought in the writ petition.

¶36

W.P.(C) No.25735 of 2013

¶37

¶38

The copies of the documents seized including the hard disk and pen drive have been offered to the petitioner. This is evident from Annexure R2(a) produced along with the statement filed by the second respondent. The petitioner is free to get a copy of the documents which takes in the hard disks and pen drives and other documents. No right of the petitioner is infringed at this point of time as to warrant interference by this court.

¶39

The wild allegations have been made against the third and fourth respondents who are impleaded in personal capacity. Those allegations are emphatically denied by the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. It is unnecessary to delve deep into these allegations in view of the nature of controversy in the writ petition. The remedy, if any, of the petitioner to move other forum on this count is however left open.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶42

smm

¶43

W.P.(C) No.25735 of 2013 3

V.P.Rasheed v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Rasheed v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reji M.Poulose Vs Ms. Baby Joseph P.

G.Jayan Vs the Authorized Officer

Joshy Varghese Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Aringath Kelan Vs Smt.Ishitha Roy

Sevashram Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

E.K.Vasumathi Vs the Tahsildar(Rr) Tly. and Others