TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash (i) the order dated 14th March 2025; and (ii) the impugned Panchanama dated 1st June 2024. Additionally, a declaration is sought that the impugned search action undertaken by the Income Tax Department is illegal and without jurisdiction and direct the Respondents to forthwith release the gold jewellery seized during the said search. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in trading, manufacturing, and importing and exporting gold, silver, platinum and other precious metals. It also trades/deals outside Maharashtra. The Petitioner is also a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Law ("GST Law"). According to Petitioner No. 1, though it does not have its own ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hansraj Jewellers, Subhadra Jewellers, Radhagobinda Jewellers, Rithvika Gold Pvt Ltd, S. D. Jewellers and Saraswati Alankar. Thereafter, Petitioner No. 2 left with 7738.80 gms of the balance gold which was to be shipped back to Mumbai. The said balance gold jewellery was put in transit through a courier company via air-transit. However, on 12th May 2024, the officials of the Income Tax Department intercepted the said balance gold jewellery at Bhubaneshwar Airport and took in their custody the said balance gold of 7738.80 gms. 6. According to the Petitioners, the Respondents did not provide/issue any order/notice/communication in respect of the said gold jewellery taken in their custody. Thereafter, on 15th May 2024, the Deputy Director ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d submission explaining the entire modus operandi of the business of Petitioner No. 1 and the role of Petitioner No. 2 and the details of the seized gold inventory. Similarly, vide letter dated 11th July 2024, Petitioner No. 2 also made a detailed submission explaining the entire modus operandi of the business of Petitioner No. 1. To substantiate the averments and the explanations given in the aforesaid two letters, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 also enclosed several documents, the details of which have been set out in paragraph 4.15 of the Petition. 9. The Petitioners then filed Writ Petition No. 12902 of 2024 before this Court challenging the actions of the Respondents who had illegally kept the stock-in-trade of Petitioner No. 1 in their cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2024 and custody of the gold jewellery was taken on the said date, the Panchanama suggests that the search commenced on 1st June 2024 at 6.15 pm and the proceedings were closed on the same date at 8.30 p.m. This recording in the Panchanama clearly appears to be incorrect. We say this because when the statement of Mr. Sanjay Korgaonkar was recorded under Section 131 (1A) on 16th May 2024, the Income Tax Department itself admitted that on 12th May 2024, gold of 7738.74 gms belonging to Petitioner No. 1 has been kept in the custody of the Income Tax Department on failure to produce any supporting documents. This was in the form of a question put to Mr. Sanjay Korgaonkar. For the sake of convenience, the said question and answer is reproduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ans. Sir, the names of the parties for home the abovementioned gold of 1622.08 gms is sold in the month of May is Shivani Agencies, Hansaraj Jewellers, Radha Gobinda Jewellery, Saraswati Alankar, Subhadra, SS Jewellers. I am making a excel of the same of delivery of gold to various parties in Bhubaneswar as last page in Annexure-C (Annexure-C being the ledgers of individual parties) reflecting the quantum. However, this excel is only made for our internal reference and is not entered in Tally books as stock delivered to local parties in Bhubaneswar and can be tallied only after payments are received from retailers. 13. Apart from this, the valuation of the seized gold was done by the Income Tax Department on 17th May 2024 as evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also done by them on 17th May 2024. Hence, the so-called explanation given in the affidavit dated 26th September, 2025 is not only acceptable but contrary to the record. This apart, we find from the evidence on record that in fact this jewellery was the stock-in-trade of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has in fact produced ample evidence to show that it was the stock-in-trade of the Petitioner. Once this is the case, we find that the entire action taken by the Respondent Authorities is contrary to law. 17. We, accordingly, hereby quash the order dated 14th March 2025 and the impugned Panchanama dated 1st June 2024. We also direct the Respondents to forthwith release the said seized gold jewellery of 7738.80 gms to Petitioner No. 1 within....