(a) Income-tax---

----Search and seizure---Objections to order of seizure---Must be filed within 30 days before Income-tax Authorities---Petitioner bona fide pursuing remedy before Civil Court---High Court allowing petitioner to file objections before Income-tax Authorities within 30 days of order of High Court-- Indian. Income Tax Act, 1961, S.132(5)---Indian Limitation Act, 1963, S.14.

(b) Income-tax---

----Search and seizure---Bar of suits in Civil Court---Civil suit filed against order of search and seizure---Civil suit not maintainable in view of S.293---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 132 & 293.

The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents on the ground that he had pledged some gold ornaments with respondent No. 3, that the income-tax authorities exercising powers under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, conducted a search of the premises belonging to the father- in-law of respondent No. 3 who was staying in the same house where respondent No. 3 was residing, that after the search there was seizure of some property, including gold ornaments which led to the filing of the suit and that gold ornaments belonged to the plaintiff and these were merely pledged with respondent No. 3. The trial Court rejected the plaint in terms of Order 7, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. On a revision petition:

Held, (i) that a perusal of Order 7, rule 11, clause (d) indicates that if a civil suit cannot be tried, then, the plaint can be rejected. In the present case, search and seizure was conducted in terms of section 132 of the Act. A specific remedy has been provided under section 132(1) of the Act, which is to the effect that if any person objects for any reason to an order of seizure made under subsection (5) of section 132 of the Act, then such person can within a period of 30 days, from the date of search or seizure file _an application before the authority specified in subsection (5). Further, there is a specific bar under the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the maintainability of the civil suit. This is so provided under section 293 of the Act. No suit in a Civil Court can be filed to challenge any proceedings taken by the authorities under the Act. In the plaint it is the order of seizure which would ultimately be gone into and, therefore, the bar created under section 293 would squarely be attracted. The plaint was liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and it was rightly rejected.

(ii) That a period of 30 days is specified under section 132(5) for challenging the order of seizure. Since that period was over, the petitioner was free to file objections within a period of 30 days from the date of judgment of the High Court, because the petitioner under a bona fide belief was following a remedy in the Civil Court. As such, on the basis of the principle contained in section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; it would be just and proper to allow the petitioner to file objections. As such, if the objections were now filed within a period of 30 days before the income-tax authorities, the respondent authorities would look into the same and would not reject the same on the ground of limitation. The objections if any preferred by the petitioner, would be disposed of within the period stipulated under the Act.

A. Dudawat for Petitioner.

N. K. Mody for Respondent No. 1.

R.D. Jain, Senior Advocate with Ku. Ami Jain for Respondent No.2 Sanjay Dwivedi for Respondent No. 3.

JUDGMENT

T. S. DOABIA, J.--Heard.

Rameshwar Soni, the present petitioner, figured as plaintiff. He filed a suit against the respondents. The basis for filing this suit in brief is. as under:

As per the petitioner/plaintiff he had pledged some gold ornaments worth Rs.43,200 with respondent No. 3. It so happened that the income-tax authorities exercising, powers under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, conducted a search of the premises belonging to the father-in-law of respondent No. 3. The father-in- law was staying in the same house, where respondent No. 3 is residing. After the search, there was seizure of some property including gold ornaments the value whereof is mentioned above. This led to the filing of the present suit. The plea taken was that these ornaments belong to the plaintiff and these were merely pledged with respondent No.3.

The Court below has come to the conclusion that the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It is this order passed by the Court below, which is the subject-matter of this revision petition.

A perusal of Order 7, rule 11, and more so clause (d) indicates that if a civil suit cannot be tried then the plaint can be rejected. In the present case, search and seizure was conducted in terms of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A specific remedy has been provided under section 132(11) of the 1961 Act. This is to the effect that if any person objects for any reason to an order of seizure made under subsection (5) of section 132 of the Act, then such person can within a period of 30 days, from the date of search or seizure file an application before the authority specified in the aforementioned subsection. It be further seen that , there is a specific bar under the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the maintainability of a civil suit. This is so provided under section 293 of the Act. No suit in a civil Court can be filed to challenge any proceedings taken by the authorities under the Act. In the plaint it is the order of seizure, which would ultimately be gone into and, therefore, the bar created under section 293 would squarely be attracted. The plaint was liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, and it was rightly rejected. Before parting with this order one thing requires to be taken notice of. This fact is that a period of 30 days is specified under section 132(5) for challenging the order of seizure. That period is obviously over. The petitioner/plaintiff is left free to file objections now within a period of 30 days. This period would begin from today. This is because the plaintiff/petitioner under bona fide belief was following a remedy in the civil Court. This forum is obviously not available. As such, on the basis of the principle contained in section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it would be just and proper to allow the petitioner to file objections. As such, if the objections are now filed within a period of 30 days, the respondent authorities would look into the same and would not reject the same on the ground of limitation. The objections if any preferred by the petitioner, the same be disposed of within the period stipulated under the Act.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.

M.B.A./3386/FCOrder accordingly.