Dilip Mehta v. ITD [2024] 166 taxmann.com 280 / (2025) 483 ITR 662 (MP)(HC) Editorial : ITD v. Dilip Mehta [2024] 300 Taxman 584 (SC), SLP dismissed due to delay of 200 days.

S. 132(3) : Prohibitory order-valuable article-Liquor bottles are valuable articles within the meaning of section 132. Liquor bottles can be seized-Prohibitory order in respect of liquor bottles-Not valid.[S. 132, 133(1)]

Sub-section (3) of section 132 is an exception to section 133(1) in its sweep and purpose. Section 132(3) provides that where it is not practicable to seize the articles (books of account, other documents, money, jewellery or other valuable articles or things) for reasons other than those mentioned in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 132, a prohibitory order can be passed preventing the person concerned from removing the articles found in his possession. The factors necessary for invoking the second proviso to section 132(1) are: (i) volume; (ii) weight; (iii) other physical characteristics; (iv) and dangerous nature, making it impossible or impracticable for the competent authority to remove the articles. The intention of the Legislature is very clear, viz., it is the duty of the authorised officers to effect seizure wherever any valuable article or thing is found during the course of the search and the words “not practicable to seize” used in section 132(3) have to be understood in this sense, viz., where there is a practicable difficulty in effecting seizure, an order under section 132(3) can be passed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*