9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the seizure of gold ornaments by the Income Tax Department and the subsequent orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the learned Single Judge. Details of the Judgment: *Issue 1: Seizure of Gold Ornaments* The first petitioner, a manufacturer of gold ornaments, claimed that the second petitioner, its employee, was involved in transferring gold ornaments from Chennai to Kerala. The goods sent were seized by the Income Tax Department, leading to a petition filed by the second petitioner for the release of the seized gold ornaments. *Issue 2: Orders Passed* The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax directed the second petitioner to furnish a Bank Guarantee for the release of the seized gold ornaments. Subsequently, the learned Single Judge modified the order, directing the release of the entire seized gold on the petitioners furnishing a Bank Guarantee for 70% of the value of the goods and jointly executing a bond without surety for the remaining 30%. *Issue 3: Writ Appeal* Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners filed a Writ Appeal before the High Court. During the appeal, the counsel for the appellants proposed a deposit of Rs. 24 lakhs by the first petitioner to release the seized gold ornaments, which was accepted by the Income Tax Department. *Conclusion:* The High Court disposed of the Writ Appeal, directing the first petitioner to deposit Rs. 24 lakhs within fifteen days for the release of the seized gold ornaments. The Income Tax Department was granted liberty to recover any outstanding amount after completing the assessment proceedings against either petitioner. The first respondent was instructed to expedite the assessment proceedings within six weeks.
|
