- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 200007 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX LAKSHMI COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, APMC ROAD, SADASHIVA NAGAR BELAGAVI – 590 001 2. THE DIERECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX -KARNATAKA CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING NO.1 QUEENS ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE ADD.JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA & GOA (INV) AYAKAR BHAVAN EDC COMPLEX, PATTO –PLAZZA PANJIM –GOA – 403 001. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES 3RD FLOOR, JEEVANDEEP BUILDING SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) c Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - AND: CMS INFO SYSTEMS LTD., REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER MR. KRISHNA RATHOD, BRANCH MANAGER HUBBALLI & VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT CRS NO.9160/9/B, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 029. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AMIT KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, PRYAING TO THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2024 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP NO. 200997/2023 AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO BE GRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - ORAL ORDER This petition by the Revenue challenges the final order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.200997/2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The respondent herein (petitioner) preferred the above W.P.No.200997/2023 seeking various reliefs and after hearing both sides, this Court passed the final order dated 14.11.2024 as hereunder: “In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Quash the reply letter dated 21.12.2022 in file No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022023/1048138903(1) issued by Respondent No.3, the copy of which is at Annexure-E; (ii) Direct the Respondent No.3 to release the seized amount of Rs.2 Crores in favour of the Petitioner Company. (iii) Direct the Respondent No.3 to produce investigation report along with complete record of raid conducted on 25.11.2022 wherein 2 Crores was seized. (iv) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. (v) Allow petitioner to add, alter amend the petition with the permission of the court.” - 4 - 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the application at Annexure-D dated 16.12.2022 filed by the petitioner under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has pointed out that pursuant to the same, respondent No.3 – Deputy Director of Income Tax has proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application without taking into account the various contentions urged in the application or referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, which according to the petitioner would entitled him for release of the cash / currency seized by the respondent. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 deserves to be set aside and matter remitted back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame. 4. Per contra, learned DSGI for respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 – revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the application at Annexure-D dated 16.12.2022 will indicate that apart from putting forth various contentions and grounds in support of the claim for release of the seized cash / currency, petitioner has also - 5 - referred to several documents in support of its claim. However, neither the said documents have been referred to by respondent No.3 in the impugned order nor the reasons, which is an unreasoned, non-speaking order without assigning any sufficient, valid or cogent reasons as to why the request of the petitioner was being rejected. Under these circumstances, in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit additional documents in support of its claim for the purpose of securing relase of the seized cash / currency, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned letter at Annexure – E dated 21.12.2022 issued by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. (iii) Petitioner undertakes to appear before respondent No.3 on 25.11.2024 without awaiting further notice from respondent No.3. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce pleadings, document, etc., before respondent No.3, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to proceed further, in accordance with law. (v) Respondent No.3 shall hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from 25.11.2024. - 6 - 4. A perusal of the aforesaid order under review clearly indicates that this Court has set aside the impugned reply dated 21.12.2022 and remitted the matter back to respondent No.3 (review petitioner No.1 herein) - the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Lakshmi Complex, 4th Floor, APMC Road, Sadashiva Nagar, Belgavi-590001 for the purpose of reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law,. Under these circumstances, apart from the fact that the order under review cannot be said to be suffering from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court, in view of the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.200997/2023, merely setting aside the letter dated 21.12.2022 issued by respondent No.3 (petitioner No.1 herein) cannot be said to cause any prejudice to the review petitioners warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Insofar as the various contentions urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioners – Revenue as regards occurrence of events during the pendency of the writ petition before its disposal are concerned, since no opinion has been expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, the matter is summarily remitted back to review petitioner No.1 – respondent No.3, there is - 7 - no necessity to elaborate on the said contention for the purpose of present order and no opinion is expressed on the said contention in the present order or the aforesaid order. 5. Respondent No.3 (Review petitioner No.1) is directed to comply with the directions issued in the final order dated 14.11.2024 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC