Court dismisses petition challenging seizure of gold bars & cash due to lack of cooperation. Assessing Officer to conduct assessment.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the seizure action and release of gold bars and cash, as the petitioner failed to cooperate in the legal proceedings despite multiple opportunities provided. The court noted the petitioner's evasion of the legal process and declined to grant relief, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer would conduct an assessment following the law. The petitioner's failure to explain the unaccounted source of the cash found and irregularities in cash sales documentation contributed to the court's decision.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to seizure action and release of gold bars and cash under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ challenging the seizure action and release of gold bars and cash. The search action was initiated on a group involved in Hawala transactions. Lockers at Gold Sukh Safety Vaults Limited were used for illegal cash transfers. A search was conducted on lockers, including one held by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed ownership of the locker's contents but failed to explain the unaccounted source of the cash found.

2. The petitioner's statement was recorded, admitting to being the last operator of the locker. Despite being given opportunities to appear, the petitioner failed to do so. The locker was eventually broken open, leading to the seizure of cash and gold bars. The petitioner submitted documents after the search was completed, indicating possible irregularities in cash sales.

3. The Revenue alleged that the cash found was part of international Hawala transactions. The Assessing Officer was informed about the search, and seized documents were handed over for further action. The petitioner's sales register showed unusual trends in cash sales, lacking details of buyers and bank information.

4. The petitioner sought release of seized materials and multiple adjournments but failed to appear for hearings. The court noted that the petitioner consistently evaded the legal process. The court declined to grant relief, stating that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities to participate in the proceedings. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to cooperate in the legal proceedings despite multiple opportunities provided, leading to the seizure of cash and gold bars. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer would conduct an assessment following the law, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances.

---