9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - W.P.(C) 6878/2023, W.P.(C) 6921/2023, W.P.(C) 8846/2023 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2023 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA For the Petitioner Through: Dr. Swaroop George, Mr. Sarthak Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners; and/or f) Allow the Petitioners to take necessary steps in law to procure the goods, once the Petitioners No. 1 to 4 prove their ownership of the seized goods. 2. The petitioners claim to be owners of goods which are stated to have been seized by the Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes [DT T]. The seized goods comprised of twenty four cartons containing gold and silver jewellery along with cash amounting to a total sum of ₹ 4 crores. 3. Of the petitioners, petitioner no. 5 claims to be an Angadia of the other petitioners. It appears that the seizure formed subject matter of challenge in Hari Rai Ors. vs. Commissioner of Trade Taxes W.P.(C) 3799/2014 in which petitioner no. 5 here is stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed jewellery and to submit a fresh/new report, wherein the statements and evidence and statements of the Petitioners No. 1 to 4 are also taken on record and they are given an opportunity of oral hearing; and c) Direct Respondent No. 1 to issue the details of the Inventory of the seized goods remaining with the Department after the theft belonging to Petitioners No. 1 to 4; and d) Set aside the penalty imposed on the Writ Property to the tune of Rs. 1,44,98,769/- as mentioned in the report; and e) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to return the seized goods and if the said goods are stolen then direct the Respondent No. 1 to compensate the Petitioners with the value of the goods stolen as per the rate of gold prevailing at date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar to be no justification for this Court individually examining the findings as recorded in the Report of the Committee. 5. Let Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel representing the respondents take instructions in the aforesaid light. 6. Let these matters be called again on 01.08.2023. 5. Mr. Aggarwal, on instructions, today apprises us that the report which has been impugned has been duly accepted by the competent authority in the DT T and that the respondents are now in the process of communicating individual orders to all those who had laid claims before the Fact Finding Committee which had been so constituted. It was further pointed out that those of the petitioners who claim title over the seized articles had not even care ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
