9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). He, therefore, submitted that, in the interest of justice and to see that the petitioner does not suffer a huge loss, the gold ornaments may be released after taking appropriate bank guarantees for the value of the gold ornaments seized. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was opposed by Mr. M. J. Thakore, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, by raising the contention that this court would have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Hence, before discussing the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, some facts of the case are required to be stated, which are as under : This petition is filed by Subodhchandra and Co., Ahmedabad, wherein it is prayed that the order of seizure of the petitioner's gold ornaments weighing 2,881.750 gms. as described in annexure 'C1' be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to return the ornaments forthwith to the petitioner. It is further prayed that pending hearing and disposal of the petition, the ornaments be handed over to the petitioner on the terms and conditions which may be laid down by this court. It is the say of the petitioner that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ----------------------------------- Description No. of Purity Gross weight Net weight pieces (Ct.) (Grms.) (Grms.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spring chain 4 22 399.650 399.650 Necklace H. S. (23x3) 69 " 1,080.400 1,079.150 Ear rings 218 prs. 436 " 1,401.700 1,395.700 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 509 22 2,881.750 2,874.500 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is stated that the said ornaments were handed over to Ashit M. Shah. When he was boarding the plane from Madras to go to Bombay, on September 30, 1994, he was intercepted and searched by the officers of the Income-tax Department, and the said gold ornaments were seized from him. When Ashit M. Shah was examined and interrogated, he informed the officers of the Income-tax Department that approximately 2,900 gms. of gold ornaments belonged to Subodhchandra and Co., Dhanji Street, Bombay, and he was car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as categorically stated before the court that Ashit M. Shah, from whom the gold ornaments were seized, would file the necessary affidavit before respondent No. 2 stating that the gold ornaments in question belong to the petitioner and that he has brought the same from Madras on behalf of the petitioner. He stated that the partner of the petitioner-firm would also file an affidavit to that effect. He further submitted that even if the value of the said gold ornaments is included in the income of the petitioner or in the income of respondent No. 4, the petitioner would furnish the bank guarantee to respondent No. 3, for the amount of Rs. 13,66,000, which is the value of the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner, as per the seizure, panch nama. He, therefore, submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the gold ornaments are released. He pointed out that by not releasing the gold ornaments, the petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss of his credit in the international market, and that no purpose of the respondents would be served by keeping the gold ornaments in the strong room. As against this, Mr. M. J. Thakore, learned counsel for the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , this contention is raised on the assumption that respondent No. 4 is the owner of the seized gold ornaments. The said presumption, as the record shows, is without any basis, because, at the initial stage, when the gold ornaments were seized, respondent No. 4 had categorically stated that the gold ornaments weighing about 2,900 gms. were of the petitioner. From him, the necessary documents including vouchers and bills were also seized, which also reveal that about 2,900 gms. of seized gold ornaments belong to the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid facts, considering the provisions of the various sub-sections of section 132, and the facts of the present case, at the admission stage of this petition, it would not be possible to arrive at the conclusion that this court would have no jurisdiction to decide this matter. This would be clear from sub-sections (1), (4), (5), (7) and (9A) of section 132. Sub-section (1) of section 132 empowers search and seizure by the "Authorised Officer" on the basis of information. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132 reads as under : " (c) any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article or thing and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch other person. In the present case, it is not disputed by respondent No. 3 that Ashit M. Shah has specifically stated at the time of seizure of the gold ornaments that the said gold ornaments belong to the petitioner. In such a situation, it was the duty of respondent No. 3 to consider the provisions of subsection (7) and deal with the proceedings in accordance with the law. If respondent No. 3 had applied his mind to the aforesaid facts, then immediately he was required to proceed against the petitioner. In that case, as the petitioner is assessed to income-tax at Ahmedabad, this court would have jurisdiction to entertain this petition wherein the petitioner has challenged the seizure of the gold ornaments belonging to it. Further, sub-section (9A) of section 132 provides that where the authorised officer has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), the books of account or other documents or assets seized under that sub-section shall be handed over by the authorised officer to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person within a period of fifteen days of such seizure and thereupon the powers exerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
