PARAS JEWELERS Vs. PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) The present appeal is against the judgment dtd. 29/2/2024 passed by the learned Single Bench, wherein the writ petition challenging the seizure of jewellery which was said to be stock-in-trade by the petitioner was refused to be handed over from seizure. The premises of the case would emerge from the facts that on 19/10/2023, a search and seizure action under Sec. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the residence-cum-business premises of appellant M/s Paras Jewelers at Jagdalpur. On the same date, the preliminary statement of Paras Chand Jain was recorded under Sec. 131 (1A) of the Act of 1961.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per Sec. 132 (1) (iii) if the goods which are seized form part of stock-in-trade, then they could not be seized at all. He would submit that learned Single Bench completely ignored this provision and went upon Sec. 132-B (i) to say that the appellant can apply for release of the goods on payment of tax. He would further submit that direction ipso facto would lead to admission of the fact that they were unaccounted, but the law as provided under Sec. 132 (1) (iii), is that the stock-in-trade could not be seized at all. The Department of Revenue can only prepare the inventory. He further submits that when the things moved are in the stock-in-trade whether it will be accounted for or not, it would not affect the status.

(3.) Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the order to affirm certain goods were under stock-in-trade, it has to be prima facie established. He would refer to the statement made on oath under Sec. 132 (4) of the Act of 1961 to submit that the appellant admitted the fact that they do not have any record or invoices for such goods which were found in the residence to show that it was stock-in trade. Therefore, in order to avail the benefit of Sec. 131 (iii) this fact is required to be established that it was the part of the stock-in-trade. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal do not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed.