Ownership of seized gold stays with the assessee until sale, allowing Gold Control proceedings for non-declaration.

Seized gold, gold ornaments and diamond jewellery retained under income-tax seizure provisions did not transfer ownership to the Income-tax Officer; the assets remained the assessee's property until sale under the statutory recovery mechanism. Because the petitioner had not made the declaration required under the Gold (Control) Act, the gold and jewellery, being held beyond the permissible limit, remained liable to confiscation under that Act. The voluntary disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 did not attract the claimed immunity. Accordingly, the other authority could proceed under the Gold (Control) Act, and the writ petition was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether gold, gold ornaments and diamond jewellery seized by the Income-tax authorities and retained under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had ceased to belong to the petitioner so as to prevent the Collector of Central Excise from proceeding under the Gold (Control) Act.

Analysis: Section 132(5) authorises the Income-tax Officer to retain seized assets only to the extent necessary to meet estimated tax liability; it does not transfer ownership to the Income-tax Officer. Section 132B also contemplates recovery by application or sale of retained assets and requires any balance, or the proceeds thereof, to be returned to the person from whom they were seized, which shows that title remains with the assessee until sale. The petitioner had failed to make the declaration required by section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, and the gold and jewellery, being held beyond the permissible limit, were liable to confiscation under section 71 of that Act. The voluntary disclosure made under section 14 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 did not attract the immunity under section 16 of that Ordinance.

Conclusion: The property in the seized gold and jewellery did not pass to the Income-tax Officer, and the second respondent was entitled to proceed under the Gold (Control) Act; the writ petition was therefore unsustainable.

---