IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 19146 of 2010(P) 1. CHACKO.V.JOSEPH,S/O.V.C.JOSEPH, ... Petitioner Vs 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, ... Respondent 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :05/08/2010 O R D E R S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 19146 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T
An amount of Rs. 88 lakhs was seized from a Scoda car bearing
Reg. No. TN 43-Z/2500 from Wyanad . The enforcement authorities
initiated proceedings. Ultimately, the proceedings by the
enforcement authorities were dropped and on the strength of a
warrant issued by the Director of Income-tax under Section 132A of
the Income-tax Act, the amount was handed over to the income-tax
authorities for further proceedings under the Income-tax Act. The
petitioner now submits that the amount may be returned to the
petitioner. The petitioner further contends that even assuming that
the petitioner is liable for payment of any tax, that would only be 30%
of the amount with penalty for which it is not necessary to withhold
the entire amount, for which he undertakes to furnish security.
2. In view of the above contention, I directed the standing
counsel for the Income-tax Department to file a statement detailing all
these aspects. Now, the standing counsel has filed a statement giving
a calculation as to what would be the amount due from the petitioner,
if, ultimately the proceedings under Income-tax Act goes against him.
The amount stated in the statement is Rs. 60,24,333/-. He would
further submit that unless the entire proceedings are over, the
amounts cannot be returned to the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the petitioner would submit that it is irrational and unjust to retain
the amount insofar as the petitioner is prepared to furnish security
for the amount. He further submits that if worse comes to worst,
the petitioner would only be liable to pay Rs. 60,24,333/- and at least
the balance amount may be directed to be refunded to the petitioner
without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner that no amount
can be deducted from the amount seized.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
W.P.C. No. 19146/10 -: 2 :-
4. I am of opinion that insofar as even if everything goes
against the petitioner, the amount payable would only be Rs.
60,24,333/-. The balance amount with the income-tax authorities can
be refunded to the petitioner subject to further proceedings under
the Income-tax Act and without prejudice to the contentions of the
petitioner in the matter.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the income-tax authorities to return the amounts retained by them
after deducting an amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees sixty five lakhs
only) pending further proceedings to be taken by respondents 3 and 4
without prejudice, of course, to the contention of the petitioner that
no amount is due from him. The amount shall be refunded within one
month.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.