A writ petition seeking return of seized documents was dismissed because the petitioner failed to approach the respondent officer for release of documents before initiating writ proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.14271 of 2014
E.V.P. Estates and Properties Development Limited, Rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, E.V.Perumalsamy Reddy, 23, Sir Thiyagaraya Road, Pondy Bazaar, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
.. Petitioner
-vs-
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I (Admin), No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. .. Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to return the entire original documents seized from the petitioner at the time of search conducted on 10.01.2008 now under the custody of the respondent except those documents of immovable property under attachment.
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel ******
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondent to return the entire original documents seized from the petitioner at the time of search conducted on 10.01.2008, now under the custody of the respondent, except those documents of immovable property under attachment.
2.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Income Tax Department relying on the counter affidavit filed, raised a preliminary objection stating that there is no designation called “Commissioner of Income Tax-I
(Admin.)”as described by the petitioner in the above petition. Further, at no point of time, any representation was made by the petitioner for release of the seized documents before the appropriate officer viz., The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Chennai. In the absence of any representation by the petitioner for release of seized documents, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
3.This Court is of the opinion that for issuing a direction to the respondent, it is mandatory for the petitioner to approach the respondent with appropriate application. When the respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has not even approached the respondent for such release as such sought for in the present writ petition, then this Court cannot consider the relief. Thus, the writ petition is not entertainable.
4.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
abr
To
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I (Admin), No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.
+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.26679
W.P.No.14271 of 2014
VBM(CO) CB(19/07/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be permitted against the Income Tax Department while the petitioner has not first approached the department for release of seized documents.
Whether the petitioner failed to exhaust the remedy by making a representation for release of seized documents before filing the writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
E.V.P. Estates and Properties Development Limited
Commissioner of Income Tax-I (Admin)
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
