Amin Ahmedali Lalani vs Union of India

Heard Mr. V.R. Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 302 to 310 of 1999 and 312 to 315 of 1999 and Mr. A. Diwan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 330 of 1999. Also heard Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. R. Murlidharan, the learned counsel for respondent No. 7. One of the main grievances of the petitioners is that the amounts standing in the accounts of the petitioners in respect of which prohibitory order had been issued by the income tax Department have been withdrawn by the income tax Department from the concerned bank, respondent No. 7 herein, without any authority of law.

Mr. Diwan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the department should be directed to bring back the money to the respective accounts. Dr. Chandrachud, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the revenue, stated that out of the total amount of Rs. 15.23 crore which was the subject-matter of the prohibitory order, the department has withdrawn from the bank Rs. 10.60 crore by two pay-orders. The amount standing to the credit of the petitioners in different accounts in the bank is approximately to the tune of Rs. 4.50 crore. Dr. Chandrachud agreed that no more withdrawal will be made by the department from the respondent No. 7 bank during the pendency of these petitions. Mr. Murlidharan, the learned counsel for respondent No. 7 bank, stated before us that the bank has not made any adjustment in the accounts of any of the depositors including the petitioners. Dr. Chandrachud stated that the department will issue suitable instructions to respondent No. 7 bank not to adjust the money withdrawn by the department against the deposits standing in the accounts of the petitioners. The above statements are accepted. It is, however, made clear that this order will not, in any way, preclude the department from proceeding with the assessment and/ or taking such other measures as are permissible under law.

The petitioners have also challenged the attachment and continuation of attachment of their accounts. Hence, we issue rule. Returnable after six weeks. Respondents waive service. Liberty to the petitioners to apply for expeditious hearing of the petitions.