AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Rajes Kumar, for the writ petitioner, and Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The contention of the writ petitioner is that the entire amount due has been paid by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Settlement Commission and no further amount is due and payable. The writ petitioner has made an application on June 21, 2001, u/s 132B(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, respondent No. 2, but the same has been kept pending in spite of repeated reminders.
In this connection, Section 132B(3) of the Income Tax Act may be taken note of. The said section is set out hereinbelow.
"132B. (3) Any assets or proceeds thereof which remain after the liabilities referred to in Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) are discharged shall be forthwith made over or paid to the persons from whose custody the assets were seized."
On proper interpretation of the said section it appears to us that upon payment of the entire amount all the liability stands discharged and the assets are to be made over to the persons from whose custody they were seized of.
When the application was filed on June 21, 2001, the application should have been disposed of forthwith and if any amount was due that should have been paid under such circumstances we are of the view that the assets should have been released. The respondents have unnecessarily retained the assets as a result whereof the petitioner suffered.
Be that as it may we are of the view that unless it can be shown that any further amount is due from the writ petitioner the assets are to be released forthwith within two weeks.
The writ petition and the application for interim relief both stand disposed of.