Full Judgment
ORDER
SHEET WP No.203 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUSHILA DEVI AGARWAL Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :
13. h August, 2013.
Appearance: Mr.B.P.Biswas, Advocate Mr.A.L.Acharya, Advocate Mr.P.Dudheria, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rupen Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Sumitro Das, Advocate for the respondents The Court: After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties for a long time, it seems that the Income Tax Department no longer has any claim against the writ petitioner.
Yes, at one point of time, they had a claim of Rs.5,56,536/- including interest upto 22nd February, 2008.
This is found from departmental instructions handed upto me by Mr.Mitra, learned Senior Advocate for the department.
But it appears that the writ petitioner was successful in prosecuting departmental appeals against the assessment made against her, upto the stage of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Hence not there appears to be no claim of the Income Tax Department.
But it all happened in April 1993.
On 22nd April, 1993 the Income Tax Department in exercise of their powers under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 searched the premises of the writ petitioner and seized eighteen items of jewellery.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, they are valued at Rs.15 to 16 Lakhs now.
Out of these eighteen iteMs.three items were ordered to be returned to the writ petitioner on 19th August, 1993.
Thereafter, all remaining items except four were ordered to be returned to her.
These orders were passed in different stages of the assessment proceedings.
But till date, the writ petitioner complains that none of these items of jewellery have been returned to her.
Mr.Mitra cited Section 132B of the Income Tax Act 1961 to submit that the seized items could be kept as security by the department to realise their claim against the assessee.
As I have said before, there does not appear to be any claim of the Income Tax Department against the writ petitioner assessee.
Therefore, in my opinion, she is entitled to return of all the eighteen items of jewellery.
But as a matter of abundant caution, I direct the Income Tax department to return to the writ petitioner those eighteen items of jewellery.
Simultaneously, the writ petitioner will deposit the same in a locker with any nationalised bank convenient to the Income Tax Department, in the presence of the Income Tax Officials.
This means that the items will be kept in the locker after making an inventory thereof.
The writ petitioner will not operate the locker for a period of eight weeks from date.
Within this period, the Income Tax department will issue a certificate as to whether they have any outstanding claim against the writ petitioner.
If the Income Tax department is unable to raise any claim against the writ petitioner within eight weeks from date, the writ petitioner will become free to deal with the items of jewellery in whatever way she pleases.
This implies that for a period of eight weeks from date, there will be an order of injunction restraining the writ petitioner from dealing with, disposing of, encumbering or in any way parting with possession of these eighteen items of jewellery.
If the Income Tax department raises any demand upon the writ petitioner within that period, the order of injunction will continue for a further period of four weeks to enable the Income Tax department to take fresh steps with regard to the goods.
Possession of the goods will abide by the steps so taken or not taken by the Income Tax authorities.
This writ application is disposed of by the above order.
All parties concerned to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings.
G/ (I.P.MUKERJI, J.)