Seizure and disclosure scheme relief: banked cash may be released in part where the Department's interests remain protected.

Cash standing to the credit of a bank account may be treated as an asset for seizure purposes, and a later declaration under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016 does not by itself displace Section 132B. On the facts noted, the Court found that release of Rs. 5 crores from the seized amount would not prejudice the Department because sufficient funds would remain available to secure any further demand or proceeding. It also noted that, if the scheme declaration was ultimately accepted, the petitioner would be entitled to the remaining release sought, while the RBI bonds would stay with the Department as security until pending or future proceedings concluded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of Rs. 5 crores from the seized amount and consequential benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana Scheme, 2016, notwithstanding the Department's reliance on the seizure provisions and the timing of the declaration under the scheme.

Analysis: The petitioner's declaration under the scheme had to be examined in the context of the amounts already appropriated towards tax, surcharge, penalty and the amount kept in RBI bonds. The Court held that cash standing to the credit of a bank account could constitute an asset for the purpose of seizure, and that the petitioner could not avoid the effect of Section 132B merely because the declaration under the scheme came after the seizure. At the same time, the Court found that, on the facts, release of Rs. 5 crores would not prejudice the Department, since sufficient amounts would remain available to safeguard any further demand or proceeding. The Court also found that the petitioner's entitlement under the scheme, if finally accepted, would naturally include the balance release sought.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to release of Rs. 5 crores.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the respondents were directed to release the amount, while the RBI bonds were to remain with the Department as security until the conclusion of the pending or future proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts show that the Department retains sufficient funds to protect its interests, seizure of banked cash does not preclude release of part of the amount for compliance with a statutory disclosure scheme, even if the declaration is made after the seizure.

---