DR USHA SABHARWAL & ANR. vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court noted that the petitioners had made a representation dated 07.07.2025 to the Chairman, CBDT, which had not been replied to. Although the respondents' counsel had no instructions, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file an additional representation, annexing the earlier one, within two weeks. Upon receipt, the CBDT was directed to consider both the earlier representation dated 07.07.2025 and the additional representation. The CBDT was also mandated to afford a hearing to the petitioners within three weeks, in terms of Section 132(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and to decide the matter within six weeks thereafter. The date and time of the hearing were to be communicated to the petitioners at least one week in advance, and the decision was to be communicated to them. The ratio decidendi is that representations regarding the return of seized documents must be considered by the competent authority (CBDT) after due hearing, as mandated by the Income Tax Act and the Search and Seizure Manual.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, Dr. Usha Sabharwal and another, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents (Central Board of Direct Taxes and others) to release original documents related to their immovable properties, which they alleged were illegally retained. Alternatively, they sought a direction for the CBDT to expeditiously decide their representations for the return of these documents. The petitioners' counsel highlighted a communication dated 28.05.2025 from the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv)-III, Gurugram, which acknowledged their request for seized documents and advised them to approach the CBDT as per the Search and Seizure Manual. The petitioners had indeed made a representation to the Chairman, CBDT, on 07.07.2025, which remained unreplied.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release original documents pertaining to their immovable properties, which are alleged to have been illegally retained without authority of law, in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is obliged to expeditiously decide the representations submitted by the petitioners for the return of original documents, in accordance with the Search and Seizure Manual and Section 132(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioners argued that their original property documents were illegally retained by the respondents without justification. They relied on the communication from the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv)-III, Gurugram, which indicated that the CBDT is the appropriate authority to consider their request for the return of seized documents. They also pointed out that their representation to the CBDT had not been decided. Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel for the respondents stated they had no instructions regarding whether the communication had reached the CBDT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132(10)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10461/2025 & CM APPL. 43449/2025
DR USHA SABHARWAL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr Ajay Vohra, Sr Advocate with Mr Zoheb Hossain, Mr Aniket D Aggarwal, Mr Samarth Chaudhari, Mr Kartik Sabharwal, , Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr Apoorv Aggarwal, Mr Parth Samwal, JSCs, Ms Nupur Sharma, Mr Gaurav Singh, Mr Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms Muskan Goel, and Mr Himanshu Gaur, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
O R D E R %
22.07.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition with the following prayer:- “a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to release original documents in relation to immoveable properties belonging to the Petitioners which have been illegally retained in complete violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India without authority of law; b) in the alternative, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing Respondent No.1 to expeditiously decide (in a time bound manner) the representations submitted by the Petitioners for release of original documents in relation to immoveable properties belonging to the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2025 at 13:24:09
Petitioners which have been retained illegally and without authority of law;”
The submission of Mr Vohra and Mr Hossain is that the present petition has been filed primarily for the return of the original documents relating to immovable properties of the petitioners, which have been retained by the respondents for no justification. Our attention has been drawn to the Annexure G, which is a communication dated 28.05.2025 addressed to the petitioners herein by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv)-III, Gurugram, which, inter alia, reads as under: “Please refer to your letter dated 15.05.2025 and email dated 07.04.2025 on the subject cited above vide which you have submitted request to handover the original documents seized during the search proceedings on the Gem Records Group. 2. In this regard, it is submitted that, as per the relevant provisions of the Search and Seizure Manual issued by the Directorate of Income Tax (Central Board of Direct Taxes), if the concerned person objects to the continued retention of documents, even after approval of concerned authority, they have the right to approach the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), present their case, and request the return of the documents. The Board is obliged to grant an opportunity of being heard and will pass an appropriate order based on the merits of the case. 3. Accordingly, the request for providing the seized documents could not be considered at the point of time and further you could reach with application request to the Central Board of Direct taxes for considering the same.”
It is a fact that the petitioners herein have made a representation This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2025 at 13:24:09
dated 07.07.2025 to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi which representation has not been replied to by the CBDT. 4. Though, the learned counsel for the respondents says that they have no instructions, as to whether the communication has reached the CBDT, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file an additional representation annexing the earlier representation within a period of two week from today and on receipt of the same, the CBDT shall consider the communication dated 07.07.2025 so also the additional representation and after affording a hearing to the petitioners within three weeks in terms of Section 132(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 decide the same within six weeks thereafter. The date and time of hearing shall be communicated to the petitioners at least one week in advance. The decision be communicated to the petitioners. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J JULY 22, 2025 M
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2025 at 13:24:09
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Paramount Tea Marketing PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 OrsGauhati · 4 Nov 2026
- Md. Junaid vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Sanjeevini Health Care vs. M/S.Vijayalakshmi And AssociatesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Trilok Chandra vs. State Tax OfficerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Basant Ballabh Punetha vs. State Of UttarakhandUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
