Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Vetrivel Minerals v. ACIT 2021 TaxPub(DT) 4491 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED Brij Bhushan Singal v. ACIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1501 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5186 (SC)
REFERRED CIT & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2200 (SC)
REFERRED State of Kerala & Ors v. Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1625 (SC)
REFERRED Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. 2004 TaxPub(DT) 1391 (SC)
REFERRED Union of India & Anr. v. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. 2003 TaxPub(DT) 1429 (SC)
REFERRED Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT 1980 TaxPub(DT) 1130 (SC)
REFERRED Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) & Ors. 1974 TaxPub(DT) 0353 (SC)
REFERRED Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1954 TaxPub(DT) 0123 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1025 (Mad-HC) IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P) Ltd. v. CIT W.P. Nos. 9753, 9757, 9761 & 11176 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos. 11043, 9838, 9842 & 11041 of 2023 23 February, 2024 For the Petitioner in all Petitions by: P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, Senior counsel J.Sivanandaraj, Senior counsel Assisted by S.Kaushik Ramaswamy for Akhil R.Bhansali For the Respondents in all writ petitions by: AR.L.Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India Assisted by A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing counsel, and A.N.R.Jayaprathap, Junior Standing counsel. ORDER The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.9753, 9757 and 9761 of 2023 have been filed to declare that the seizure of the .txt files by the 2nd respondent from an undisclosed location is not in accordance with law and therefore is inadmissible in evidence. 2. The writ petition in W.P. No. 11176 of 2023 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30-3-2023 and consequential demand notice dated 30-3-2023. 3. In the present case, the 2nd respondent had passed three assessment orders dated 31-12-2022, against which the writ petitions in W.P. No. 9753, 9757 and 9761 of 2023 have been filed challenging the admissibility of evidence. Subsequent to the filing of the above writ petitions, the respondents had passed another assessment order dated 30-3-2023 without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, challenging the same, the writ petition in W.P. No. 11176 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents-Department had conducted a sudden search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) on different dates between 1-12-2021 and 27-1-2022. In the said searches, the 2nd respondent had seized the electronic data and pursuant to the same, the Show Cause Notices dated 21-12-2022 and 22-12-2022 were issued to the petitioner and the reply was filed by the petitioner on 24-12-2022 and 28-12-2022. Subsequently, the assessment orders were passed on 31-12-2022. As far as the subject matter relating to W.P. No. 11176 of 2023 is concerned, the Show Cause Notice was issued on 1-3-2023 and the reply was filed on 14-3-2023 and 15-3-2023. Subsequently, the assessment order was passed on 30-3-2023. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1025 (Mad-HC)

IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P) Ltd. v. CIT

W.P. Nos. 9753, 9757, 9761 & 11176 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos. 11043, 9838, 9842 & 11041 of 2023

23 February, 2024

For the Petitioner in all Petitions by: P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, Senior counsel J.Sivanandaraj, Senior counsel Assisted by S.Kaushik Ramaswamy for Akhil R.Bhansali

For the Respondents in all writ petitions by: AR.L.Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India Assisted by A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing counsel, and A.N.R.Jayaprathap, Junior Standing counsel.

ORDER

The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.9753, 9757 and 9761 of 2023 have been filed to declare that the seizure of the .txt files by the 2nd respondent from an undisclosed location is not in accordance with law and therefore is inadmissible in evidence.

2. The writ petition in W.P. No. 11176 of 2023 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30-3-2023 and consequential demand notice dated 30-3-2023.

3. In the present case, the 2nd respondent had passed three assessment orders dated 31-12-2022, against which the writ petitions in W.P. No. 9753, 9757 and 9761 of 2023 have been filed challenging the admissibility of evidence. Subsequent to the filing of the above writ petitions, the respondents had passed another assessment order dated 30-3-2023 without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, challenging the same, the writ petition in W.P. No. 11176 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents-Department had conducted a sudden search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) on different dates between 1-12-2021 and 27-1-2022. In the said searches, the 2nd respondent had seized the electronic data and pursuant to the same, the Show Cause Notices dated 21-12-2022 and 22-12-2022 were issued to the petitioner and the reply was filed by the petitioner on 24-12-2022 and 28-12-2022. Subsequently, the assessment orders were passed on 31-12-2022. As far as the subject matter relating to W.P. No. 11176 of 2023 is concerned, the Show Cause Notice was issued on 1-3-2023 and the reply was filed on 14-3-2023 and 15-3-2023. Subsequently, the assessment order was passed on 30-3-2023.