Court dismisses writ petition for return of seized documents by Income Tax Department for failure to make prior request.

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking the return of seized documents by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner failed to approach the respondent with an appropriate application for the release of the documents, as required. The court emphasized the necessity of making such a representation before seeking relief through a writ petition. Consequently, due to the absence of a formal request from the petitioner to the respondent, the court found the petition unsustainable and dismissed it without imposing costs on either party.

---

---

Issues:
- Relief sought for the return of seized documents
- Preliminary objection raised by the respondent
- Requirement for the petitioner to approach the respondent with an appropriate application
- Dismissal of the writ petition

Relief sought for the return of seized documents:
The petitioner in this case sought a direction to the respondent, the Income Tax Department, to return all original documents seized during a search conducted in 2008, except those related to immovable property under attachment. However, the respondent raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petitioner had not made any representation for the release of the seized documents before the appropriate officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Chennai. The court emphasized that it is mandatory for the petitioner to approach the respondent with an appropriate application for such relief.

Preliminary objection raised by the respondent:
The respondent, through the Senior Standing Counsel, argued that the petitioner's description of a non-existent designation, "Commissioner of Income Tax-I (Admin.)," and the lack of any representation for the release of seized documents before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Chennai, rendered the writ petition unsustainable. The respondent's position was supported by a counter affidavit filed in response to the petition, highlighting the absence of any approach by the petitioner for the release of the documents in question.

Requirement for the petitioner to approach the respondent with an appropriate application:
The court, after considering the arguments presented, concluded that since the petitioner had not approached the respondent for the release of the seized documents as sought in the writ petition, the court could not entertain the relief requested. The absence of any representation or application from the petitioner to the respondent for the return of the documents was a crucial factor leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Dismissal of the writ petition:
In light of the respondent's preliminary objection and the lack of an appropriate application from the petitioner for the return of the seized documents, the court dismissed the writ petition. The court held that without the petitioner approaching the respondent with the necessary request, the relief sought could not be granted. Consequently, the petition was not entertainable, and no costs were imposed on either party.

---