Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Amore Jewels Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Principal Commissioner And Ors on 11 May, 2017
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6359 / 2017
1. Amore Jewels Private Limited, No. 3A, Pandit Motilal Nehru
Marg, Eint Bhatti, Behind Patel Aluminum, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-
400 063 Through Its Director Shri Shanitlal Barmecha, S/o Late
Bhanwarlal Barmecha
2. Anuj Ajmera, Son of Shri Anil Ajmera,, 24, Chaudhary Charan
Singh Marg, Jaipur, Sales Executive, Amore Jewels Pvt. Ltd. No.
3A, Pandit Motilal Nehru Marg, Eint Bhatti, Behind Patel Aluminum,
Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Income Tax
Department,, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur
2. Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) , Income Tax
Department, ARA Centre,, E-2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi
110 055
3. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) , Income Tax
Department, Air Intelligence Unit & Unit-8 (1), ARA Centre,, E-2,
Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi 110 055
4. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Income Tax Department,, Room
No. 1, Ground Floor, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anant Kasliwal For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Order 11/05/2017 It is a case where a search and seizure was conducted on the petitioner No.2. The jewellry articles were seized under the "Panchnama". It was a disclosed stock in the book of accounts of the firm. It could not have been seized in view of the prohibition under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short (2 of 2) [CW-6359/2017] "the Act of 1961"). The petitioners made an application for release of articles but it has not been decided by the respondents. A period of more than three months has already passed, thus petitioners were left with no option but to file this writ petition to challenge search and seizure. In view of the above, the respondents may be directed to release the articles so seized from the petitioner No.2, the employee of the petitioner No.1.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.
On a search and seizure, certain articles were seized. A "Panchnama" for it was prepared. The petitioners filed an application under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 for release of articles. It has not been decided though a period of three months has been passed. in view of pendency of application, simultaneous petition for the same relief cannot be accepted. The writ petition is, however, disposed of with the direction to the respondent/s to hear and decide the application filed by the petitioners under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(M.N. BHANDARI)J. Preeti, PA/40