High Court Of Bombay
Balkrishna Ramgopal Ruia vs. Union Of India & Ors.
Section 132B
T.D. Sugla, J.
Writ Petn. No. 1022 of 1984
19th March, 1990
Counsel Appeared
Suresh Parikh with D.H. Nanavati, for the Petitioner, Dr. V. Balsubramanian with J.P. Deodhar & Miss S.G. Shah, for the Respondents
T.D. SUGLA, J.:
By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought to recover the necklace belonging to him from the Revenue. The necklace was seized by the Department from the locker standing in the name of respondent No. 6 with the Bank of Baroda, Napean Sea Road Branch, on 5th March, 1973.
Shri Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites the Court’s attention to the fact that the necklace in question was taxed in the petitioner’s hands. The petitioner has now paid tax in respect thereof and, therefore, it should be returned to the petitioner. When this matter came up for hearing the other day, Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Department, stated that since the necklace was seized by the IT Department from the bank locker of Shakti Trading Co. (P) Ltd., respondent No. 6, during a raid conducted by the Department, the Department cannot return the necklace to the petitioner. It has to be returned to the person from whom it was seized. The case was adjourned for enabling the petitioner to obtain an affidavit from Shakti Trading Co. (P) Ltd., to the effect that it had no objection to the Department’s handing over the necklace to the petitioner. An affidavit has been filed today, a copy of which has been supplied to Dr. Balasubramanian. According to Dr. Balasubramanian, the Department should not be asked to hand over the necklace to the petitioner even now as Shakti Trading Co. (P) Ltd., might claim the necklace from the Department or it might be needed in some recovery of taxes from. Shakti Trading Co. (P) Ltd.,
In the absence of an affidavit-in-reply, the Court has to proceed on the basis of the averments made in the petition. The petition is clear as to its contents. The necklace, though seized from the locker belonging to respondent No. 6, belongs to the petitioner. This fact has been accepted by the Department. That is why the assessment in respect thereof has been made in the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner has paid all taxes due on account thereof. Shakti Trading Co. (P) Ltd., has, by means of the affidavit filed today in the Court, clearly stated that it has no objection to the Department’s handing over the necklace to the petitioner. The Department has not been able to show any material on the basis of which it could have any claim on the necklace. In the circumstances, the necklace requires to be and is hereby directed to be delivered to the petitioner forthwith.
In the result, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a)(iv).
No order as to costs.
[Citation : 185 ITR 328]
