9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Ownership of gold seized during an Income-tax raid; Request for release of gold by non-resident Indian; Dispute over ownership between petitioner and third respondent; Legal basis for retaining seized gold pending investigation. Analysis: The petitioner, a non-resident Indian working in Saudi Arabia, purchased 11 gold biscuits weighing 1,100 gms from Saudi Arabia and brought them to India after fulfilling all legal obligations. The gold was entrusted to the third respondent for safekeeping. However, during an Income-tax raid at the third respondent's premises, the gold was seized on suspicion of tax evasion. The petitioner filed multiple claims seeking the release of the gold, but they were rejected by the Income-tax authorities. The main issue revolves around the ownership of the seized gold. The Income-tax Department presumes the gold belongs to the third respondent, suspecting it was purchased with unaccounted income. On the other hand, the petitioner claims ownership, stating he gave the gold to the third respondent for safe custody. The court emphasized that the ownership of the gold must be determined through a proper inquiry and adjudication. It was deemed premature to conclude whether the seized gold is the same as the one brought into the country by the petitioner. The court, after hearing arguments from both parties' counsels, upheld the decision of the learned single judge who dismissed the petitioner's request for the release of the gold as an interim measure. The court highlighted the importance of not prejudging the ownership issue and preventing any party from gaining an unfair advantage. It was also noted that the seized gold might be needed as evidence in future legal proceedings. Therefore, the court found the decision to retain the gold pending further investigation to be appropriate and not unreasonable. In conclusion, the writ appeal filed by the petitioner was deemed without merit and subsequently dismissed by the court. The judgment underscores the need for a thorough examination of the ownership dispute and the prudence in retaining the seized gold until the matter is conclusively resolved through proper legal procedures.
|
