TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the authorities under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could seize 150 tolas of gold ornaments of the petitioner under section 66 when there was no reasonable belief of contravention; and (ii) whether the Income-tax Officer was bound to deliver the petitioner's gold ornaments in terms of the order passed under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): whether the authorities under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could seize 150 tolas of gold ornaments of the petitioner under section 66 when there was no reasonable belief of contravention.
Analysis: Section 66 authorises seizure only where the Gold Control Officer has reason to believe that a provision of the Act has been, is being, or is attempted to be contravened. The expression requires an objective and reasonable basis, and seizure cannot be used to make a roving enquiry or to justify action after the event. The record showed that the petitioner's 150 tolas of ornaments had already been found, on wealth-tax verification, to belong to her and that the combined holding of the family did not exceed the statutory limit of 4,000 grams under section 16(5). No material was shown to establish any breach of the Act or any reasonable basis for believing that contravention had occurred or was about to occur.
Conclusion: The power under section 66 could not be invoked, and seizure of the petitioner's ornaments under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was without jurisdiction.
Issue (ii): whether the Income-tax Officer was bound to deliver the petitioner's gold ornaments in terms of the order passed under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The order under section 132(5), read with rule 112A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, had already held that the 150 tolas of ornaments belonged to the petitioner and should be released to her on request. That finding was not displaced by the later refusal to deliver the ornaments. The Income-tax Officer had no authority to continue to retain property which had been ordered to be released, and the interim directions of the High Court reinforced the obligation to return the ornaments.
Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer was bound to deliver the petitioner's gold ornaments in accordance with the release order.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to protection against seizure under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and to release of the ornaments held by the Income-tax authorities, resulting in complete relief in her favour.
Ratio Decidendi: Seizure under section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is valid only on the existence of an objectively reasonable belief of contravention, and where no such belief or statutory breach is shown, the power cannot be exercised; likewise, property ordered to be released under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be retained without authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
