Release of seized property after tax discharge was justified where no competing claim to the necklace remained.

A seized necklace was ordered to be released to the petitioner because the Revenue accepted that it belonged to the petitioner, had already assessed the tax in the petitioner's hands, and the tax liability had been discharged. The person from whose bank locker the necklace was seized filed an affidavit raising no objection to delivery. In the absence of any affidavit-in-reply or material showing a competing claim or any subsisting departmental right to retain the article, there was no basis to continue seizure, and immediate delivery was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for release and delivery of the seized necklace from the Revenue after the tax liability relating to it had been discharged and the Department had no subsisting claim.

Analysis: The necklace was seized from a bank locker during a raid, but the Department accepted that it belonged to the petitioner and had assessed the tax in the petitioner's hands. The petitioner had paid the tax due, and the person from whose locker it was seized filed an affidavit expressing no objection to its delivery to the petitioner. In the absence of any affidavit-in-reply or material showing any competing claim by the Department, there was no basis to retain the article.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to immediate delivery of the necklace, and the writ petition succeeded.

---