COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. R SESHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent's husband, Rathinaswamy Chettiar, was carrying on business in gold and gold jewelry under the name and stalk of Sri Nataraja Vilas Jewellery Hall at Chindambaram. He died on November 7, 1971, and thereafter the business was being carried on by his legal heir and the first respondent. On September 3, 1972, the intelligence wiling of the I. T. Dept. searched the residence and business premises of the first respondent and seized 21Kgs. of old and new gold jewellery and primary gold worth about Rs. 4,48,319. THE ITO passed a summary assessment order under s. 132(5) of the I. T. Act, determining the total income at Rs. 6,90,390 and the tax liability at Rs. 6,30,775. On October 8, 1975, the President of India promulgated the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, and the Ordinances was subsequently repealed by the Voluntary Discolors of Income and WEalth Act (Act No. 8 of 1976). THE first respondent filed voluntary returns as per ss. 14(1) and 15 of the Act and paid the tax in respect of the income declared and also informed the Asst. Collector of Central EXcise, Pondicherry,. and forwarded to him extracts of the entire in Form G. S. 10 regarding the gold and gold ornament owned and possessed by her and declared under Act 8/76. THE first respondent then requited the Deputy Director of Inspection, income-tax to releases the gold and gold jewellery seized from her permissed. As the Collector of Central Excise (appellant herein) refused to give currency for the releases the first respondent filed a writ petition before this court. Opposing the release of the gold and gold jewellery it was contended on behalf of the /Collector of Central Excise that :

(2.) ALL the above four contentious were rejected by this court holding-

(3.) THE next question to be consider is whether any proceeding was pending in respect of the gold before, any authority under there Gold (Control) Act. On September 8, 1872, the Asst. Collector of I. T. with a copy to the Range Officer, Central Excise, Chindambaram, to record a statement from Rs. Balasubramaiam, son of late Rs. Rathinasamy Chettiar. In pursuance of this letter, when the Range Officer, Chindambaram, went to record the statement from Rs. Balasubramaiam, he was informed that the statement was already sent to the Asst. Collector of Central Exise. Pondicherry. THE Range Officer procured a copy of the statement and sent the same to the Asst., Collector of Central Excise, Pondicherry. On these facts, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that since a letter was addressed with a copy of the Range Officer, to record a statement from R. Balasubramaiam, proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act must be deemed to have been commenced on September 8, 1972, and as proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act were pending at the time when the first respondent made the declaration under Act 8/76, she was not entitled to the immunity claimed.