SURESH VAL CHAND JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition the petitioner made the following prayers:

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respective parties argued at length. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the gold belonging to the petitioner was seized on 9th Dec., 2004. As per Section 132 although the authorities are empowered to search and seize but as per the proviso to Section 132 the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, being stock -in -trade of the business, found as a result of such search shall not be seized but the authorised officer shall make a note or inventory of such stock -in -trade of the business. Since the bullion and the gold seized by the authorised officer on 9th Dec., 2004 is stock -in -trade of the business, therefore, such bullion cannot be seized and proviso to Section 132 only gives power to make inventory. But here in the instant case 44 kg. gold has been seized by the IT Department.

(3.) ON the contrary learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after seizure the petitioner has sent the entire record to the office at Bombay and at Jaipur. Both the offices have returned the same without considering and without explaining any reason as to why the authorised officer is not satisfied with the record and it is only mentioned that since record is not accompanied with the explanation and also not explained in person, therefore, the original record is sent back to the petitioner.