https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95428 Seized jewellery/gold is not liable to automatic release merely on expiry of 120 days under the first proviso to Section 132B(1)(i), because Section 132B(4) prescribes interest as the consequence of delayed action, indicating the timeline is directory rather than mandatory. Accordingly, continued retention beyond 120 days only triggers statutory interest liability and does not, by itself, confer an enforceable right to immediate release. Further, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to direct release where the AO is seized of the matter, since adequacy of explanation and evidence regarding nature and source of acquisition must first be assessed and liability determined by the AO; the remedy lies in seeking release (including against bank guarantee) before the AO. - HC en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95428 Seized jewellery/gold is not liable to automatic release merely on expiry of 120 days under the first proviso to Section 132B(1)(i), because Section 132B(4) prescribes interest as the consequence of delayed action, indicating the timeline is directory rather than mandatory. Accordingly, continued retention beyond 120 days only triggers statutory interest liability and does not, by itself, confer an enforceable right to immediate release. Further, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to direct release where the AO is seized of the matter, since adequacy of explanation and evidence regarding nature and source of acquisition must first be assessed and liability determined by the AO; the remedy lies in seeking release (including against bank guarantee) before the AO. - HC Highlights Income Tax Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95428