2009 (11) TMI 410 - HC - Income Tax

Search and Seizure- on information received from the police station, that three persons were carrying four gunny bags containing silver/gold jewellery bricks and gold biscuits the bags were seized and handed over to the Income-Tax Department. The petitioner filed a writ petition and sought tat they were merely couriers. The petitioner produced the books of accounts and other required documents to show that it was merely a courier. Held that- per the Department the entire record has been sent to the jurisdictional Commissioners of Income-tax for further action as per the income-tax law. Section 132B provides the mechanism for application for requisitioning assets. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to move an application before the jurisdictional authority for release of the goods. The assessing officer should deal with the same and pass appropriate orders.

Summary

Issues involved:
Seizure of goods from couriers at Old Delhi Railway Station, claim of being couriers by petitioners, failure to produce bills/challans/builty receipts, request for release of seized goods, various hearings and statements recorded, jurisdictional authority for release of goods under Section 132B, disposal of writ petition with directions.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed by petitioners claiming to be couriers for the release of four gunny bags seized from them at Old Delhi Railway Station. The respondents received information that three persons were carrying the bags containing silver/gold jewelry and bricks without proper documentation. The police seized the goods and informed the Income-tax Department. The petitioners claimed they were merely couriers and provided details of the actual owners of the goods. Despite furnishing receipts and bills, the Income-tax Department did not release the goods. The petitioners requested the court to direct the respondents to release the seized goods.

In response, the respondents detailed various hearings where the petitioners and their representatives appeared but failed to provide complete information. The matter was adjourned multiple times for the petitioners to explain the assets seized. The original record contained statements and documents provided by the petitioners, indicating delays and incomplete information. Eventually, the Department sent the entire record to the jurisdictional Commissioners of Income-tax for further action as per the income-tax law.

The court referred to Section 132B, which provides the mechanism for requisitioning assets, and noted that the petitioners are assessed by the Assessing Officer in Ahmedabad. The court directed the petitioners to move an application before the jurisdictional authority for the release of the goods within two weeks. It instructed the Assessing Officer to deal with the application and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, provided the petitioners fully cooperate.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioners to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 132B for the release of the seized goods.