9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the seizure of gold ornaments under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 2. Entitlement of the petitioner to the return of gold ornaments seized during a raid under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the Seizure of Gold Ornaments under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968: The petitioner, an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, owned 150 tolas of gold ornaments, which were regularly declared and assessed in her wealth-tax returns. During a search under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, conducted on August 23, 1979, the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner, her husband, and her mother-in-law were seized. The Income-tax Officer, after verifying the wealth-tax records, ordered the release of 150 tolas of gold ornaments to the petitioner and 200 tolas to her mother-in-law. Despite the order, the gold ornaments were not released due to discrepancies in the lists submitted by the petitioner. Additionally, the authorities under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, were contemplating seizing the gold ornaments upon their release. The petitioner argued that under Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, she was not required to submit a declaration for owning 150 tolas of gold ornaments, as the total weight of gold ornaments possessed by her family did not exceed 4,000 grams. The court examined Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, which allows seizure if there is a reasonable belief that the provisions of the Act have been or are being contravened. The court referred to precedents, including Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO and Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty, to emphasize that "reason to believe" must be based on relevant and not extraneous reasons. The court concluded that there was no reasonable belief that the provisions of the Act were contravened, as the total weight of gold ornaments owned by the petitioner and her husband was less than 4,000 grams. Therefore, the authorities under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, had no jurisdiction to seize the gold ornaments. 2. Entitlement of the Petitioner to the Return of Gold Ornaments Seized During a Raid under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 951 of 1981, seeking the release of the gold ornaments seized during the raid. Despite an order by the Income-tax Officer on November 16, 1979, and an interim order by the court on July 13, 1981, the gold ornaments were not returned to the petitioner. The Income-tax Officer argued that the petitioner had not explained the discrepancies in the lists submitted, which delayed the return of the ornaments. The court noted that the Income-tax Officer had already verified the wealth-tax records and found the petitioner's declaration to be correct. Therefore, there was no justification for retaining the gold ornaments. The court directed the Income-tax Officer to deliver the gold ornaments to the petitioner as per the order dated November 16, 1979. Conclusion: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1492 of 1981 was allowed, and the authorities under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, were restrained from seizing the petitioner's 150 tolas of gold ornaments. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 951 of 1981 was also allowed, directing the Income-tax Officer to deliver the gold ornaments to the petitioner. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
|
