2025 (2) TMI 1146 - HC - Income Tax

Court Rules on Gold Seizure at Airport; Petitioners Must Formally Request Return Under Section 132(1)(iii) of IT Act.

H.K. Jewels Private Limited & Anr. Versus The Assistant Director of Income Tax Investigation & Ors.

The Bombay HC addressed a case involving the seizure of gold and jewellery at Bhubaneswar Airport under Section 132(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ... Seizure of gold and jewellery at Airport u/s 132(1)(iii) - as argued bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, being stock-in-trade of the business, found as a result of such search shall not be seized but the authorised officer shall make a note or inventory of such stock-in-trade of the business - revenue submitted that the petitioners have alternate and efficacious remedy u/s 132B HELD THAT:- In the clarification, no specific plea is raised regards seizure being ultra vires the provisions of Section 132 (1) (iii) proviso of the Act. If the petitioners seek writ of mandamus, it is important that the petitioners demand justice from the authorities and this is followed by refusal. The issue of seizure being ultra vires Section 132 (1) does not appear to have been raised by the petitioners and based upon the same, there is no demand of return of the gold and jewellery. Petitioner submits that he would obtain instructions whether such demand is made. If such demand is indeed made, then, the petitioners must point out such demand to the respondents so that the respondents can deal with such demand. If no demand is made, we grant the petitioners a week’s time to make such demand by giving full particulars and also, by referring to the relevant legal provisions upon which the petitioners seek to rely upon. Within two weeks from receipt of such demand/application/representation, the concerned respondents must deal with such demand/ application/representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The Bombay High Court heard a case regarding the seizure of gold and jewellery at Bhubaneswar Airport under Section 132(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that the seizure was illegal, while the revenue contended that there was an alternate remedy under Section 132B of the Act. The court noted a dispute over the date of seizure but emphasized the importance of the petitioners making a specific demand for the return of the seized items based on the legal provisions cited. The court granted the petitioners time to make such a demand and directed the respondents to address it within two weeks, ensuring a reasoned order is passed. The petition was disposed of with no costs awarded.