AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 1276 ::1998 AIR SCW 1130 ::1998 TAX. L. R. 398 ::1998 (3) ADSC 566 ::1998 ADSC 3 566 ::(1998) 146 CurTaxRep 1 ::1998 (3) SCC 481 ::(1998) 2 Scale 322 ::(1998) 2 SCR 253 (SC) ::1998 (2) SCR 253 ::1998 (2) UPTC 766 ::1998 UPTC 2 766 ::(1998) 97 Taxman 269 ::(1998) 2 APLJ 25 ::(1998) 144 Taxation 353 ::(1998) 3 Supreme 141 ::(1998) 230 ITR 745 ::(1998) 2 JT 413 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 1995 Tax LR 304 Orissa)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Sujata Manohar, D. P. Wadhwa , JJ

(A) Bar to Civil Courts jurisdiction - Scope - Section 293 is specific - Debars suits which even indirectly result in setting aside or modifying proceedings taken or order passed under Act - Gold seized from assessee during search and ordered to be retained - Suit by third party a relative of assessee, for partition of seized gold - Held was barred by S. 293.1995 Tax LR 304 (Orissa), Reversed. Income-Tax Act (43 of 1961) , S.293, S.132— S. 293 as it originally stood, provided that "no suit shall be brought in any Civil Court to set aside or modify any assessment or order made under this Act". The word "assessment" was omitted and the words "proceeding taken" were inserted in its place. This made the section more comprehensive in nature. Form of suit is not relevant. It is the substance which is to be seen. When the statute prescribed certain procedure and proceedings thereunder are held and order passed, it is difficult to accept a contention that proceeding and order can be modified or set aside in a civil suit filed by a third party. S. 293 is specific and does not admit filing of a suit which has the effect of even indirectly setting aside or modifying any proceeding taken under the Act or order made thereunder.(Para 9 17) In the present case search and seizure operations were conducted in the residence-....