2023 (8) TMI 180 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure of goods - twenty four cartons containing gold and silver jewellery along with cash - Validity of report of the three-member committee set up to examine the claims of the Petitioners/Angadias - seeking constitution of new committee and conduct a fresh enquiry to determine the ownership of the seized jewellery and to submit a fresh/new report - HELD THAT - It is the petitioners case that their claims were communicated through the Angadias. The said contention is noticed only to be rejected. If the petitioners were claiming ownership over the seized articles, they were obligated to raise those claims before the Committee. It is the case of the respondents that none of the petitioners apart from petitioner no. 5 had submitted any claim for the consideration of the respondents. In the absence of any material having been placed by the petitioners before the respondent DT T in support of their asserted title over the seized goods, there exists no justification for this Court to consider granting the writs as prayed for. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include challenging a report of a committee regarding ownership of seized goods, constitution of a new committee for fresh inquiry, details of seized goods inventory, penalty imposed, return of seized goods, compensation for stolen goods, and proving ownership of seized goods.

Ownership of Seized Goods:
The petitioners claimed to be owners of goods seized by the Department of Trade and Taxes, consisting of gold, silver jewelry, and cash. The ownership dispute led to the formation of a Fact-Finding Committee to examine the claims. The petitioners sought to set aside the committee's report, constitute a new committee for a fresh inquiry, and provide an opportunity for the petitioners to prove ownership.

Committee's Report and Legal Proceedings:
The impugned report by the Fact-Finding Committee was challenged in court, questioning the findings and conclusions. The Court emphasized that the Committee's report was a preliminary investigation, subject to review by the competent authority in the Department of Trade and Taxes. The respondents accepted the report and were in the process of communicating individual orders to claimants.

Claim Submission and Court Decision:
The petitioners' claims, communicated through Angadias, were not considered valid as they failed to submit claims before the Fact-Finding Committee. Only one petitioner had submitted a claim, while others did not provide evidence of ownership. As a result, the court found no justification to grant the requested reliefs and disposed of the writ petitions, leaving it open for petitioners to take further legal steps based on the report's findings.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.