SHRI SANJAY KUMAR JAIN vs. UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS

WTAX/4160/2025HC AllahabadUPHC01435794202524 September 20252 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Income Tax Authorities to verify the valuation of the seized jewellery done by the petitioner on July 30, 2025 (pages 72-75 of the writ petition). Upon verification, the Income Tax Authorities are mandated to make payment of the verified amount within four weeks from the date of the order. The court clarified that if payment is not made within this period, the Income Tax Authorities will be liable to pay penal interest at 12% on the valuation of the jewellery, calculated from the date of seizure. The Income Tax Authorities are granted liberty to recover the amount from the respondent bank as per law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The issue of exemplary costs and further compensation for mental agony was not explicitly decided.

What were the facts?

This is a writ petition filed by Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain (the petitioner) against the Union of India and five other respondents. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 94,64,844/- along with interest at 9% per annum from July 30, 2025, and exemplary costs for mental agony and financial distress. The petitioner's grievance stems from the delay in returning seized jewellery, which was subsequently lost by the respondent bank. The petitioner had agreed upon a settled amount of Rs. 41,52,146/- in 2023, but no money has been received. The petitioner is not concerned with who pays, but asserts that since the jewellery was seized by Income Tax Authorities, they are responsible for its loss and subsequent payment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Authorities are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for the loss of seized jewellery, and if so, what is the quantum of compensation and interest payable? (Question of law and fact, concerning liability and quantum of damages). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the Income Tax Authorities are responsible for the loss of the seized jewellery, as it was under their custody. They seek payment of the valued amount of the jewellery (Rs. 94,64,844/-) along with interest at 9% per annum from July 30, 2025, and exemplary costs. The petitioner relies on the valuation done on July 30, 2025. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record specific arguments made by the revenue authorities. However, the court's directions imply a dispute regarding the delay and the quantum of payment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4160 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Naveen Chandra Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, Ms. Shalini Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has sought for the following relief: "(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.9464844/-along with interest at 9% per annum from 30.07.2025 until realization of said amount from the respondents within 15 days to secure the petitioner's claims. (2) issue a writ, order or direction to award exemplary cost and further compensation for the mental agony, harassment and financial distress caused to the petitioner due to the respondent negligence, arbitrariness and malafide conduct." 3. It is clear from the facts that the Income Tax Authorities are delaying the entire process. The money should have been returned to the petitioner in the year 2023 itself when the petitioner has agreed upon the settled amount of Rs.41,52,146/-. However, no money has been received by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Ashutosh Mishra, Gaurav Mahajan, Naveen Chandra Gupta, Satish Chaturvedi, Shalini Goel Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)

petitioner with regard to the seized jewellery, which has been lost by the respondent Bank. The petitioner is not concerned with whether the money is paid by the respondent Bank or by the Income Tax Authorities. As the jewellery has been seized by the Income Tax Authorities, the loss of jewellery would amount to loss by the Income Tax Authorities, and accordingly, payment of the said jewellery has to be made by the Income Tax Authorities. 4. In light of the same, the Income Tax Authorities are directed to look into the valuation done by the petitioner on July 30, 2025 at page 72 to 75 of the writ petition and upon verification of the said valuation, make payment of the said amount within a period of four weeks from date. We make it clear that the petitioner should be paid the amount within the aforesaid period, otherwise the Income Tax Authorities shall be liable to pay penal interest of 12% on the valuation of the Jewellery starting from the date of seizure of the said jewellery. The Income Tax Authorities are at liberty to recovery the amount from the respondent Bank in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. September 25, 2025 Kuldeep WTAX No. 4160 of 2025 2 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →