- (1.) HEARD Shri Rajesh Kumar for writ petitioner and Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel for respondents.
(2.) THE contention of the writ petitioner is that the entire amount due has been paid by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Settlement Commission and no further amount is due and payable. The writ petitioner has made an application on 21st June, 2001, under S. 132B(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') before the Chief CIT, respondent No. 2 but the same has been kept pending in spite of repeated reminders. In this connection S. 132B(3) may be taken note of. The said section is set out hereinbelow : "(3). Any assets or proceeds thereof which remain after the liabilities referred to in cls. (I) of sub s. (i) are discharged shall be forthwith made over or paid to the persons from whose custody the assets were seized."
(3.) ON proper interpretation of said section, it appears to us that upon payment of the entire amount all the liability stands discharged and the assets are to be made over to the persons from whose custody they were seized.;