The petition is filed for invoking the S. 132((3) prohibiting the petitioner from removing articles (Liquor bottles) in the cup board at the residence of the petitioner. Court held that Section 132(3) can be invoked for imposing prohibitory order in regard to various articles which for reasons other than the reasons mentioned in second proviso to S. 132(1) make it impossible or impracticable for the competent authority to take physical possession or to remove. Liquor is undoubtedly a thing which is a valuable article since it has value in the market. Thus, by the very wide sweep and extent of expression “valuable article”, liquor stands included within the expression “valuable article”. Contention of the Revenue that power of seizure of liquor is exclusively vested with Excise authorities and thus the Revenue authorities by implication are denuded of any such power of seizure of liquor is untenable. order is an outcome of colourable exercise of power by the Revenue authorities which have wrongly invoked S. 132(3) since the facts and circumstances were suitable enough for invocation of S. 132(1) seizing the article. Accordingly the petition is allowed.
Dilip Mehta v. PDIT(Inv) (2024) 337 CTR 342/ 300 Taxman 584 (MP)(HC)
S. 132(3) : Search and seizure-Prohibitory order-Article-Liquor-Contention of Revenue that liquor cannot be included in the expression of valuable article is rejected-Order issued under section 132(3) is quashed on the ground that Revenue could have invoked section 132(1) of the Act. [S. 132, Art. 226]