9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income-tax. The petitioner is a resident of Kallachi, Kozhikode District. He returned from a Gulf country along with his friend one Shri V. Ahmed, who was carrying 5,597 grams of gold. The said Ahmed paid the duty for the gold before the Customs Department and thereupon entrusted the gold to the petitioner to be kept in his custody. While the petitioner was carrying the said gold, the security police on duty arrested him and seized the gold under section 41(1)(d) and section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the petitioner was handed over to Valiyathura Police Station and a crime as Crime No. 104 of 1997 was registered. The petitioner's friend Shri V. Ahmed, filed a claim application before the Judicial F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director of Income-tax to take over the gold from the Sub-Inspector of Valiyathura in whose possession the seized gold was kept. It is stated that though the Government of India has formulated liberalised policy in the import of gold, the provisions were not intended for misuse as has been done by the petitioner. The gold was brought in for a third person. Neither Shri V. Ahmed nor Shri Khader, the petitioner, had any means for purchasing such large quantity of gold. According to the statement, the modus operandi is to get the passport of illiterate and poor people for the use of the import of gold. As soon as the gold reaches India and the customs duty is paid, it is taken over by the actual owner or his agent as in this case the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er)). In that case, the claim applications were filed by the Income-tax and Sales Tax Departments under sections 451 and 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for release of the articles seized, The learned Magistrate rejected the application filed on behalf of the Income-tax and Sales Tax Departments. The appeal preferred by the Assistant Director of Income-tax was allowed and the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate was set aside directing to release the gold biscuits to the Income-tax Department. The revision filed by the claimants have been dismissed holding that the conclusion arrived at by the appellate court is legally sustainable. This court did not go into the question of power under section 132A to order seizure of the asset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the court. Section 132A does not empower the Commissioner to require the court to deliver the assets, The provision is referable only to an "officer" or "authority" referred to under sub-section (1) and not the court. A similar question has been considered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Balbir Singh [1993] 203 ITR 650, referred to earlier wherein the Tax Recovery Officer under whose custody lay the assets recovered, was not holding the assets independently. It was deposited with him in pursuance of the order of the court. Therefore, a warrant could not have been issued against the court since the officer is holding the assets on behalf of the court. Of course, it is open to the Income-tax Officer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
