Share Link Mobile View

Premium Members Advanced Search Case Removal

release of gold doctypes: judgments Search

View Complete document

Showing the contexts in which release of gold appears in the document

Change context size Small Current Large Larger

1. The petitioner, Seshammal, the widow of late Rathinaswamy Chettiar, has prayed for the issue of a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release 21,660 gms. of gold jewellery seized from her
residence on September 3, 1972.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly set out as follows. The late Rathinaswamy Chettiar was
carrying on business in gold and gold jewellery under the name and style of Sri Nataraja Vilas
Jewellery Hall at Chidambaram. He died on November 7, 1971. Thereafter, the business was being
carried on by his legal heirs. On September 3, 1972, the intelligence wing of the I. T. Dept. searched
the residence and business premises of the petitioner. They seized about 21 kgs. of old and new gold
jewellery and primary gold worth about Rs. 4,48,319. The ITO thereafter passed a summary order
under s. 132(5) of the I. T Act. He determined the total income at Rs. 6,90,390 and the tax liability at
Rs. 6,30,775. While so, on October 8, 1975, the President of India promulgated the Voluntary
Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975. The Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the
Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 (8 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act"). The petitioner filed voluntary returns as per ss. 14 (1) and 15 of the Act. She also filed the
necessary declarations in Forms B and C to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-V. The
petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 3,11,740, being the tax thereon as provided under s. 5 of the Act, i.e., 50%
before March 31, 1976, and the balance on April 19, 1976. The petitioner also informed the Asst.
Collector of Central Excise, Pondicherry, and forwarded to him extracts of the entry in G. S. 10
regarding the gold and gold ornaments owned or possessed by her and declared under the Act. The
petitioner further complied with all the formalities required under s. 16A of the Act. The petitioner
then requested the Deputy Director of Inspection, I. T., to release the gold and gold jewellery seized
from her premises. On December 18, 1976, the Deputy Director of Inspection wrote to the petitioner
that the gold and gold jewellery would be released on January 3, 1977. However, the gold and gold
jewellery were not released. When the petitioner's representative met the Deputy Director of
Inspection, I. T., he was told that the second respondent, viz., the Collector of Central Excise (Gold),
Madras, had not given his concurrence for the release. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed
this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to release the
gold and gold jewellery seized from her.

5. Mr. K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions. There
was a search and seizure of the petitioner's premises on September 3, 1972, by the intelligence wing of
the I. T. Dept. when 21,660 gms. of gold and gold jewellery were seized. Thereafter, consequent on
the promulgation of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, the petitioner made a declaration on May 28,
1976. On the basis of the disclosure made by the petitioner, the ITO, Cuddalore-1, passed an order
determining the petitioner's total income at Rs. 6,90,000 and levied a tax liability of Rs. 6,30,775. The
said tax has also been paid by the petitioner. Thus, the I. T. authorities have accepted the voluntary
disclosure made by the petitioner under the Act and they have ordered the release of the gold and gold
:
 jewellery to the petitioner. However, the second respondent intervened and has prevented without
jurisdiction the release of the gold and gold jewellery. Mr. Srinivasan contended that the petitioner
had complied with all the formalities of the Act and had made a declaration under s. 16A of the Act.
Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to immunity from being proceeded against for violation
of any of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act. In this view, the learned counsel contended that the
petitioner would be entitled to the release of the gold and gold jewellery.

16. From No. G. S. 3 prescribed says that the form is only intended for being used by persons other
than licensed dealers. The learned Central Government standing counsel was not able to draw my
attention to any prescribed form which has to be used by a licensed dealer for making a declaration
under s. 16 (8) of the Gold (Control) Act. No form other than G. S. 10 and 17 to be filed by a licensed
dealer has been brought to my notice by the learned Central Government standing counsel.

17. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner herein has complied with all the
requirements of s. 16 of the Act as well as s. 16 (8) of the Gold (Control) Act. On January 5, 1976, the
petitioner's son, Balasubramanian, wrote a letter to the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Pondicherry,
enclosing the return in Form No. G. S. 17 for the quarter ending December 31, 1975. This return was
submitted in accordance with the provisions of r. 15 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and
Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968, which rules were framed in accordance with s. 56 of the Gold
(Control) Act which stated that stated that every licensed daler, every licensed refiner and every
certified goldsmith shall furnish to the Administrator such returns as to the quantity, description and
other prescribed particulars of gold owned, possessed, held or controlled by him, in such form and
within such time as may be prescribed and different returns may be prescribed for different classes of
licensed dealers or refiners or certified goldsmiths. Section 56 (2) provides that every return shall be
made in triplicate of which one copy shall be authenticated and signed by the Gold Control Officer
and thereafter shall be returned to the dealer or, as the case may be, the refiner, and the copy so
returned shall be retained by the dealer or refiner as evidence of the return made by him under the said
section. The returns submitted by the petitioner stated that 21,660 gms. of gold jewels and primary
gold (21,325 plus 335) taken away by the I. T. Dept. had been included as per the Voluntary
Disclosure Scheme of 1975. It is not disputed that the return submitted by the petitioner was in form
G. S. 17. It is equally not disputed that the petitioner's son, Balasubramanian, did send the
communication dated January 5, 1976, enclosing the quarterly return for the period ended December
31, 1975, in form No. G. S. 17. On receipt of the above letter, the Asst. Collector o f Central Excise,
Pondicherry, sent communication No. C. No. XVII/14/2/76/ G. C. II dated May 28, 1976. The subject-
matter of the letter was stated to be "Gold control - disclosure of gold, gold ornaments under the
Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Scheme, 1975 - regarding". The letter was addressed to
the petitioner's son, Balasubramanian. The letter acknowledged Balasubramanian's letter furnishing an
extract of the entries of voluntary disclosure statement. It further stated that as per the Govt. of India
press note, Balasubramanian was required to take into account as dealer's account. A copy of the letter
was also forwarded to the Range Officer, Chidambaram, for information and necessary action. This
was followed by communication C. No. XVII/14/2/76 G. C. II dated June 26, 1976, addressed to the
Range Officer, Chidambaram, with a copy marked to the petitioner's son, Balasubramanian. It called
the attention of the range officer to the letter dated May 28, 1976, and further called upon the Range
Officer, Chidambaram, to submit the required report. In the copy marked to Balasubramanian he was
asked to report whether the primary gold had been accounted for as receipt in the dealers' account or
not. Form the register placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was evident that on
July 16, 1976, the central excise authorities verified the entries in the book and signed the same
vouchsafing the declaration made by the petitioner. Thereafter, in December, 1976, the petitioner
wrote to the Deputy Director of Inspection, Madras, requesting him to release the gold and gold
jewellery at the earliest date. The said letter informed the Deputy Director of Inspection that the
petitioner had brought the articles seized in her records and had also informed the Asst. Collector of
Central Excise, Pondicherry. It further stated that the Central Excise Officer, Chidambaram, had
:
 verified the entries in the books and affix ed his signature in token thereof. On December 18, 1976, the
ITO, Cuddalore, wrote a letter to the chartered accountant of the petitioner to send the duly authorised
representative of the petitioner on January 3, 1977, at Tiruchi to take delivery of the jewellery. On
March 12, 1977, the petitioner wrote another letter to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, the
first respondent herein. The said letter reiterated the fact that a copy of the entries in the G. S. 10 book
had been forwarded to the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Pondicherry, that the same had also been
included in the quarterly return to be filed with the central excise authorities and that under the
direction from the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, the Range Officer, Chidambaram, had verified
the entries on July 16, 1976, and initialed the form No. G. S. 10 book. The letter further stated that in
view of the fact that the petitioner had complied with all the formalities under the voluntary disclosure
scheme, the articles seized from the petitioner might be released. This was followed by the
communication dated March 20, 1977, addressed by the petitioner to the Deputy Collector of Central
Excise (Gold), Madras. This letter also detailed the various communications sent by the petitioner to
the Asst. Collector or Central Excise. Not receiving reply to this letter, the petitioner sent another
communication dated May 21, 1976, to the Commissioner, the Deputy Director of Intelligence, I. T.
Dept. and the Collector of Central Excise, Madras.

21. The net result of the above discussion is that the petitioner, having made a voluntary disclosure of
the income and wealth under ss. 3 (1) and 15 (1) of the Act, and having complied with the provisions
of s. 16 of the Act and s. 16 of the Gold (Control) Act will be entitled to immunity from the penal
provisions under the Gold (Control) Act and the Customs Act. In the right of this finding, the second
respondent is not entitled to take any proceedings against the petitioner for violation of any of the
provisions of the Gold (Control) Act in respect of the gold and gold jewellery seized from the
petitioner on September 3, 1972. The petitioner is entitled to a release of the said gold and gold
jewellery. There is some dispute about the weight of gold seized from the petitioner. That is a matter
of record as evidenced by the seizure report of the I. T. Dept. The petitioner will be entitled to a
release of the gold and gold jewellery seized under the search made on September 3, 1972, in
accordance with the seizure report. The writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus will issue
directing the respondents to release the gold jewellery seized from the petitioner on September 3,
1972. There will be no order as to costs.
: