https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783991 The dominant issue was whether Section 132B(1)(i) mandates automatic release of seized jewellery/gold on expiry of 120 days. The HC held the 120-day stipulation is directory, not mandatory, because Section 132B(4) provides the legislative consequence for delayed release through interest liability (up to 18% p.a.), indicating non-compliance does not invalidate continued retention. The second issue was whether, in writ jurisdiction, the HC could direct release despite the AO being seized of the matter; the HC declined, holding factual satisfaction as to explanation of acquisition and liability determination must be undertaken by the AO, with release possibly considered on an application (including against bank guarantee). The writ was refused. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Mar 2026 15:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783991 The dominant issue was whether Section 132B(1)(i) mandates automatic release of seized jewellery/gold on expiry of 120 days. The HC held the 120-day stipulation is directory, not mandatory, because Section 132B(4) provides the legislative consequence for delayed release through interest liability (up to 18% p.a.), indicating non-compliance does not invalidate continued retention. The second issue was whether, in writ jurisdiction, the HC could direct release despite the AO being seized of the matter; the HC declined, holding factual satisfaction as to explanation of acquisition and liability determination must be undertaken by the AO, with release possibly considered on an application (including against bank guarantee). The writ was refused. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783991