M/S R .R GOLD PALACE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/3954/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01008332202512 February 2025Bench: S.G.PANDIT5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's applications dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure-A) and 22.03.2024 (Annexure-H) and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 60 days from the date of the order. The reasoning was based on the respondent's failure to perform their statutory duty by not considering the representations filed by the petitioner for the release of seized jewellery, despite the appeal having been allowed and consequential orders passed. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus under these circumstances.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s R.R Gold Palace Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to consider their application dated 04.12.2023 for the release of jewellery seized during a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, conducted on 08.02.2013. An assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed on 27.03.2015. The petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority was allowed with certain observations. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted representations on 04.12.2023 and 22.03.2024, requesting the release of seized jewellery in light of the Tribunal's order dated 20.09.2023. The petitioner's grievance was that these representations remained unconsidered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider their application dated 04.12.2023 for the release of seized jewellery and dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a search was conducted under Section 132, assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) were completed, and an appeal before the Appellate Authority was allowed. Despite subsequent representations dated 04.12.2023 and 22.03.2024, requesting the release of seized jewellery in light of the Tribunal's order, the respondent had failed to consider these representations and take any decision. This failure to perform a statutory duty entitled them to a writ of mandamus. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that an appropriate decision would be taken within a reasonable time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6430 WP No. 3954 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3954 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S R.R GOLD PALACE PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. DHEERAJ R. TAPSE SON OF SRI. R. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO.83/1, SOUNDARYA PARAMOUNT, 5TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003, PAN: AAFCR6929K. (UNDER REGISTERED COMPANY ACT 1956) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE) AND:

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. THIRUMALEESH M, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04.12.2023 HEREIN REFERRED TO AS

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6430 WP No. 3954 of 2025

ANNX-A FOR RELEASE OF SEIZED JEWELLERY AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner/a Private Limited Company is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to the respondent to consider the application/representation dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure A) and to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

2.

Heard Sri S. Annamalai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Thirumalesh, learned counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6430 WP No. 3954 of 2025

3.

Since the prayer of the petitioner is for a writ of mandamus, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a search took place under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act'), in the case of the petitioner on 08.02.2013. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated and orders were passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015 (Annexure D1). It is submitted that Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the petitioner with certain observations. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have submitted representations on 04.12.2023 (Annexure-A) as well as on 22.03.2024 (Annexure-H) requesting the authorities to release the gold jewelleries seized during the search, in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 20.09.2023.

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6430 WP No. 3954 of 2025

5.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said representations are not considered and no decision is taken on the said representations.

6.

On the other hand, Sri V. Thirumalesh, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that appropriate decision would be taken within a reasonable time.

7.

Against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the petitioner has preferred appeal in ITA No.162/Bang/2021 and the said appeal was allowed and consequential order is passed in terms of Annexure-G dated 20.12.2023.

The petitioner submitted representations (Annexure-A and H) on 04.12.2023 as well as 22.03.2024 requesting the authorities to release the gold jewelleries seized during the search. But till this date, the respondents have not taken any decision or action on the said representations.

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6430 WP No. 3954 of 2025

8.

In that light of the above and as the respondents have failed to perform their statutory duty, the petitioner would be entitled for a writ of mandamus as prayed.

9.

In the above circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER a. Writ petition is allowed. b. The respondent is directed to consider Annexure-A dated 04.12.2023 and Annexure-H dated 22.03.2024 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within 60 days from today.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67 CT: BHK

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →