TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissed petition challenging gold seizure due to failure to follow release procedure.</h1> <h3>Suresh Val Chand Jain Versus Union Of India And Others (No. 1).</h3> The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the seizure of gold bullion, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to submit an application under section ... Search and seizure – validity - without entering into the merits of the case as the petitioner has every right to challenge the seizure memo and can also raise the issue against the flaws and violation of any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules but at the same time the petitioner is asking for, in this present petition, release of the goods, this court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction while exercising power under article 226 of the Constitution for release of gold seized by the respondents. It is for the income-tax authority to examine the entire documents. Issues:1. Seizure of gold bullion2. Search and seizure conducted without authority of law3. Direction to hand over seized goods and cash4. Application under section 132B for release of seized assets5. Failure to submit application for release of assets6. Disputed questions of facts regarding the case7. Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 for release of goldSeizure of Gold Bullion:The petitioner challenged the seizure of gold bullion on December 9, 2004, arguing that as per section 132, stock-in-trade of the business like bullion should not be seized but inventoried. The Income-tax Department seized 44 kg of gold, which the petitioner claimed was stock-in-trade. The Department's counsel acknowledged the proviso to section 132 but stated that the petitioner must apply for release under section 132B within 30 days of seizure, explaining the nature and source of acquisition. As no application was submitted under section 132B, the petitioner's claim was disputed.Search and Seizure Conducted Without Authority of Law:The petitioner sought to declare the search and seizure on December 9, 2004, as void and without jurisdiction. The Income-tax Department's counsel argued that the petitioner needed to apply under section 132B for release of assets, satisfying the Assessing Officer about the acquisition of the seized asset. The petitioner claimed to have sent records to relevant offices, but no satisfactory explanation was provided for the non-submission of the application.Direction to Hand Over Seized Goods and Cash:The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondent-authorities to hand over the seized goods and cash. The court emphasized the mandatory requirement under section 132B for the petitioner to file an application to satisfy the authorities regarding the source of acquisition of the gold. The court directed the Assessing Officer to examine the matter within 15 days of the application and release the gold if the petitioner satisfied the officer about the source of acquisition.Application under Section 132B for Release of Seized Assets:The judgment highlighted the necessity of submitting an application under section 132B to seek the release of seized assets, with a requirement to explain the nature and source of acquisition. The failure to submit such an application led to a dispute between the parties regarding the legality of the seizure.Exercise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction Under Article 226 for Release of Gold:The court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution for the release of gold seized by the respondents. It emphasized that the income-tax authority should examine the documents, and the petitioner should cooperate by filing the necessary application before the Assessing Officer. The court directed the Assessing Officer to decide on the release of gold within 15 days of the application.Disputed Questions of Facts Regarding the Case:The judgment acknowledged that the writ petition involved several disputed questions of facts. While refraining from delving into the merits of the case, the court emphasized the importance of following the provisions of sections 132 and 132B. It highlighted the petitioner's right to challenge the seizure memo and raise issues against any violations of the Act and Rules.In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to cooperate with the authorities, submit necessary documents, and apply for the release of the seized gold within 15 days. The judgment underscored the importance of following the legal procedures outlined in sections 132 and 132B for the release of seized assets.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
