9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for the return of her stridhana jewels. 2. Allegations of delay and inaction by the Income-tax Department in passing orders regarding the seized assets. 3. Discrepancy between petitioner's claim of ownership of the jewels and the Department's contention. 4. Interpretation of section 132(3) and section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act. 5. Contention regarding the fairness and equity of the Department's actions. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to return her stridhana jewels, which were listed in the annexure to the petition. The petitioner claimed that the jewels were seized during a raid in her father-in-law's house in 1982, and despite the passage of seven years, no order had been passed by the Income-tax Department regarding the assets. The petitioner argued that the retention of the jewels by the respondent was contrary to the provisions of section 132 of the Income-tax Act and requested their return for her daughter's upcoming marriage and financial needs. The respondent, represented by Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, contended that no seizure of the jewellery had occurred, and only a prohibitory order under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act had been issued. It was further argued that the petitioner was not assessed for wealth-tax, and the Department did not admit her claim of ownership over the jewels due to pending family litigation. The respondent emphasized that no order under section 132(5) had been passed, and the Department was not in possession of the jewels, precluding the issuance of a writ of mandamus. In response, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. R. Ranganathan, highlighted the prolonged inaction of the Department despite the sealed rooms since 1982 and the lack of assessment or response to the petitioner's requests until 1989. The delay in addressing the petitioner's concerns was deemed inequitable and against the principles of fairness. After considering the arguments, the court, presided over by Judge Bakthavatsalam, referenced a previous order by Sathiadev J. and concluded that issuing a writ of mandamus was not warranted. The court directed the respondent to approach the Sub-Court, Devakottai, for further proceedings regarding the return of the jewels, as per the earlier order. The court criticized the Department for the prolonged delay and lack of timely response to the petitioner's requests, emphasizing the need for expeditious action and adherence to legal principles in such matters. In the final judgment, the court dismissed the writ petition, highlighting the Department's duty to act promptly and fairly in responding to representations and resolving matters within a reasonable timeframe. The court underscored the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring timely redressal of grievances, especially in cases involving personal assets and legal disputes.
|
