Disputed ownership of seized cash must be resolved in assessment proceedings, with any admissible refund to follow under law.

Entitlement to seized cash could not be decided in writ jurisdiction because rival claims of ownership raised a disputed question of fact. The Court held that such issues must be resolved in assessment proceedings before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which were already pending, and directed all concerned persons to appear and cooperate so the proceedings could be concluded expeditiously. It further accepted that if the seized amount, or any part of it, was ultimately found to be taxable income and tax had been paid, refund would follow in accordance with law. The legality of the seizure was left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should determine entitlement to the seized cash in writ jurisdiction and direct its return, or leave the dispute to be resolved in assessment proceedings with consequential refund if admissible.

Analysis: The cash was seized in connection with proceedings under the Income-tax Act, while rival claims of ownership were raised by the petitioner and others. The Court held that the question whether the money belonged to one person or another was a disputed question of fact not amenable to decision in writ jurisdiction. Since assessment proceedings had already been initiated before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the proper course was for those proceedings to be concluded expeditiously, with all concerned persons appearing and cooperating. The Court also accepted the department's stand that, if the amount or any part of it was found to form taxable income and the tax had been paid, refund would follow in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to conclude the assessment proceedings within a time-frame and to process any admissible refund in accordance with law; the legality of the seizure was left open.

---