https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783506 Detention of jewellery seized under s.132 after settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 was held unlawful. The HC found that issuance of Form-5 resulted in full and final discharge of the petitioner's tax liability arising from the relevant assessment order, and the CIT(A)'s findings had already addressed ownership of the seized jewellery. The AO's refusal to release the jewellery on the ground that a co-locker holder's separate demand remained outstanding was held to be without authority, perverse, and contrary to the scheme's intent and the appellate findings. Consequently, the impugned action was quashed, release of the seized jewellery was directed within two weeks, and exemplary costs were imposed. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783506 Detention of jewellery seized under s.132 after settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 was held unlawful. The HC found that issuance of Form-5 resulted in full and final discharge of the petitioner's tax liability arising from the relevant assessment order, and the CIT(A)'s findings had already addressed ownership of the seized jewellery. The AO's refusal to release the jewellery on the ground that a co-locker holder's separate demand remained outstanding was held to be without authority, perverse, and contrary to the scheme's intent and the appellate findings. Consequently, the impugned action was quashed, release of the seized jewellery was directed within two weeks, and exemplary costs were imposed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783506