Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 … vs Amit Sharma on 10 March, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________/2026
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.________/2026]
[@ Diary No(s). 68186/2025]
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX 1 INDORE & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
AMIT SHARMA Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________/2026
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.________/2026]
@ Diary No(s). 1022/2026
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________/2026
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.________/2026]
@ Diary No(s). 1546/2026
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These three appeals arise from three writ petitions
filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court1 at Indore by
three separate petitioners. Writ Petition No.15169 of 2024
was filed by Sequel Logistics Private Limited; Writ
Petition No.6850 of 2024 was filed by Amit Sharma and Writ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
1 1 The High Court
Date: 2026.03.18
16:53:03 IST
Reason:
1
Petition No.6810 of 2024 was filed by Arihant Jewelers.
4. By the impugned order dated 18.08.2025, all three writ
petitions were allowed by the High Court with a direction
to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – 2
(Centralized) to release the seized articles (i.e., jewelry
consignments). Additionally, Rs.50,000/- was imposed by way
of cost to be payable to each of the three petitioners.
5. In brief, the facts are as follows: While the Model
Code of Conduct was in force during Madhya Pradesh State
Assembly Elections, the Static Surveillance Team (SST),
Ratlam intercepted a Bolero Vehicle operated by Sequel
Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and made a seizure of 37 sealed tamper
proof jewelry consignments valued at Rs.6 crore which were
in transit to various clients of Sequel Logistics under
custody of its employee Amit Sharma i.e., the writ
petitioner in Writ Petition No.6850 of 2024. Amit Sharma
from whom the seizure was made disclosed to SST that those
consignments were to different jeweler-clients of Sequel
Logistics. Amit Sharma produced all the relevant documents
regarding the consigned articles and from those documents
it could be ascertained that those consignments were in
transit to different consignees through courier Sequel
Logistics. One of the consignments was booked by Arihant
2
Jewelers, namely, the writ petitioner in Writ Petition
No.6810 of 2024.
6. It is not in dispute that governing seizure and
release of seized articles by SST/ concerned authority
during operation of the Model Code of Conduct, there is a
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) set out. However,
instead of following the SOP, the seizure was reported to
the Revenue (i.e., the Income Tax Department). On receipt
of report about the seizure, Revenue issued summons to Amit
Sharma under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for
short, ‘the Act’) and recorded his statement. Thereafter,
Revenue requisitioned the seized articles under Section
132A(1)(c) of the Act.
7. During the inquiry, Amit Sharma made a statement that
the consigned articles did not belong to him and those were
of different consignors who had appointed Sequel Logistics
as a courier for transport to different consignees.
However, surprisingly, despite documents being there to
corroborate Amit Sharma’s statement, Revenue proceeded to
issue notice under Section 148 of the Act to Amit Sharma.
8. Aggrieved by the action of Revenue, Amit Sharma filed
Writ Petition No.6850 of 2024 seeking quashing of the
3
notice under Sections 132A and 148 of the Act.
Simultaneously, Sequel Logistic, the courier, separately
filed Writ Petition No.15169 of 2024 questioning the
seizure made by SST and requisition by Revenue;
additionally, it prayed for release of the seized articles.
Arihant Jewelers, one of the consignors/consignees, in
between, had moved a representation to the Tax Authorities
but since that representation was not favorably dealt with,
it filed a separate Writ Petition No.6810 of 2024 for
release of those goods to which it had laid its claim.
9. Upon exchange of the pleadings, the High Court framed
three issues:
“Issue No.1. Whether the action of the SST
is justified in detaining/seizing the
consignments and handing over to the
Income Tax Department?
Issue No.2. Whether the action of the
Income Tax Department is justified in
initiating the proceedings under Section
148 against Mr. Amit Sharma upon a prima
facie belief that the consignment belongs
to him?
4
Issue No.3. Whether Arihant Jewelers is
entitled to get back the jewelry belonging
to them?”
10. On issue No.1, the High Court found that SOP for
search and seizure, as obtaining while Model Code of
Conduct was in force, was not followed and it, accordingly,
held that the action of SST in seizing/ detaining the
consignments and handing them over to the Income Tax
Department was not in consonance with law and in gross
violation of the SOP. Moreover, the documents brought on
record and the statement made in the pleadings indicated
that those goods were neither liable to be seized nor
liable to be detained by SST.
11. As regards issue No.2, the High Court took the view
that Amit Sharma was merely an employee of the courier and
he had not claimed ownership of the consignments,
therefore, proceedings under Section 148 of the Act
initiated against him by presuming him to be owner of the
goods were manifestly arbitrary and as such liable to be
quashed.
12. On issue no.3, the High Court found Arihant Jewelers
entitled to get back the jewelry articles that was claimed
5
by it.
13. Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, the
Revenue has filed these appeals.
14. The submission on behalf of the Revenue is that even
assuming that SOP was not followed, once seizure of any
article valued higher than Rs.10 lakhs is made, it had to
be reported to the Income Tax Department even under the
SOP. There is no dispute that such a report was made and
proceedings under Section 132A(1)(c) of the Act were
initiated. In such circumstances, the only course available
to seek release by anyone, who claims ownership of the
seized articles, is to apply under Section 132B of the Act.
In such circumstances, the direction of the High Court to
release the jewelry consignment is not proper. The correct
course for the High Court was to give liberty to the
claimant(s)/owner(s) to move application under Section 132B
of the Act for release of the seized articles.
15. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, it has been
submitted that once SOP was violated, the entire act of
seizure, followed by reporting to the Revenue, is vitiated.
Moreover, under the SOP the seized goods were liable to be
returned to the person from whom they were seized. It is
6
also submitted that from the materials placed on record it
was established that the goods were under transit by
consignor(s) to the consignee(s) and they were seized from
a courier. Once documents were produced to satisfy the
concerned team that goods were not liable to be seized as
they were not likely to be misused in the elections, there
was no option but to release those goods to the person from
whom seizure was made. Therefore, the view taken by the
High Court does not call for any interference. Moreover,
the High Court has not restrained the Income Tax Department
from proceeding under Section 148 of the Act against such
person(s) who in its opinion may have evaded tax or failed
to disclose income.
16. We have accorded due consideration to the rival
submissions and have perused the materials available on
record. In our view, as far as the findings of the High
Court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, firstly, there
is no serious challenge by the Revenue to those findings
and, secondly, the seizure was made in violation of the SOP
in force while the Model Code of Conduct was in operation.
Moreover, in absence of the requisite satisfaction that the
seized cash or articles were being transported by, or in
possession of, a person belonging to any candidate in fray
7
in the election and brought for influencing the voters,
there was no occasion to seize. Therefore, when requisite
papers were shown, SST, or the District Grievance
Committee, ought to have released the goods and not allow
them to be requisitioned by the Tax Authorities,
particularly, when there was no reason to believe that
those assets represent, either wholly or partly, income
which has not been disclosed. Besides, going after Amit
Sharma, an employee of a courier company, is inexplicable
more so when documents of consignors and consignees were
placed on record. In such circumstances, the findings
returned on Issue Nos.1 and 2 call for no interference.
17. Once the findings returned on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are
sustained, the question which would arise for our
consideration is whether the seized articles had to be
dealt with in terms of the SOP or it had to be dealt with
by addressing the claim made by its so-called owner. In
this regard, the submission on behalf of the Revenue is
that as far as the claim regarding ownership is concerned,
that had to be decided in terms of the provisions of
Section 132B of the Act. More so, when there were 37 seized
consignments and claim was set up by Arihant Jewelers in
respect of one consignment only. Thus, it was not a fit
8
case where the consignment should have been released in
favour of Arihant Jewelers by addressing its claim of
ownership. Accordingly, on behalf of Revenue, it is
submitted that Writ Petition No.6810 of 2024 filed by
Arihant Jewelers was liable to be dismissed.
18. On behalf of Arihant Jewelers, it has been submitted
that though there might be some discrepancy in the number
of consignments claimed and the number of consignments
seized i.e., that were to be delivered to Arihant Jewelers,
the fact remains that there is no dispute raised by the
courier i.e., Sequel Logistics regarding ownership of
Arihant Jewelers in respect of those consignments.
Moreover, the person from whom seizure was made had not
disputed the ownership and entitlement of Arihant Jewelers.
In such circumstances, release in favour of Arihant
Jewelers is not liable to be interfered with.
19. We have considered the submissions qua release of
seized articles in favour of Arihant Jewelers. What
transpires from the record is that the seizure was made
from Amit Sharma, who was an employee of Sequel Logistics
i.e., the courier company. Admittedly, the articles were
being transported from the consignor(s) located at Indore
to the consignee(s) at Ratlam, and the seizure was made
9
under the Model Code of Conduct. As there is no dispute
that under the SOP, which was in place during operation of
the Model Code of Conduct, the seized articles were to be
released, upon production of requisite documents, in favour
of the person from whom they were seized, in our view,
there was no occasion for the High Court to decide on the
claim of ownership made by a third party. Further, while
deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the High Court had recorded
its satisfaction that Amit Sharma was just an employee of
Sequel Logistics and that he was just a custodian of the
goods transported by its Master i.e., Sequel Logistics. The
documents also indicated that Sequel Logistics was the
courier carrying goods from the consignor(s) to the
consignee(s). In such circumstances, as per the SOP the
seized articles ought to have been returned to the courier
company i.e., Sequel Logistics from whose agent they were
seized particularly when Amit Sharma made an unrebutted
claim that he was just an employee. In fact, Sequel
Logistics had also prayed for their release in its favour.
Therefore, in our view, the operative portion of the
impugned order requires modification to the extent
indicated below. In place of the direction of the High
Court that all three writ petitions shall stand allowed,
only Writ Petition Nos.15169 of 2024 and 6850 of 2024 filed
10
by Sequel Logistics Private Limited and Amit Sharma,
respectively, would stand allowed and Writ Petition No.6810
of 2024 filed by Arihant Jewelers shall stand dismissed as
not maintainable. This we say so because under the SOP
those seized articles were liable to be returned to only
that person from whom they were seized. Besides, Arihant
Jewelers claim of ownership ought not to have been
addressed as the appropriate forum to raise such a claim
was before the appropriate tax authority under Section 132B
of the Act. Therefore, in our view, the High Court should
not have dealt with the ownership issue in writ
proceedings. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed.
The order passed by the High Court shall stand modified to
the extent indicated above. The articles so seized shall be
released in favour of Sequel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. within
three weeks from today. In addition to above, the cost of
Rs.50,000 awarded by the High Court as against the
appellant(s) is set aside. It is clarified that we have not
expressed our opinion on the ultimate ownership of the
seized article(s), therefore, the consignor(s)/
consignee(s) of those articles are at liberty to raise
their respective claim(s) before appropriate forum in an
appropriate proceeding against appropriate person(s).
11
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
…………………………………………………J
[MANOJ MISRA]
…………………………………………………J
[MANMOHAN]
New Delhi
March 10, 2026
12
ITEM NOS.5; 5.1; 5.2 COURT NO.13 SECTION IV-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 68186/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
18-08-2025 in WP No. 6850/2024 passed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Indore]
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX 1 INDORE & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
AMIT SHARMA Respondent(s)
IA No. 329863/2025 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
WITH
Diary No(s). 1022/2026 (IV-C)
IA No. 20403/2026 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
Diary No(s). 1546/2026 (IV-C)
IA No. 35239/2026 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
Date : 10-03-2026 These matters were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANFor Petitioner(s) :Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G.
Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
Mr. Harsh Parashar, Adv.
Mr. Venkataraman Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Adv.
Mrs. Priyanka Das, Adv.
Mr. Aman Jha, Adv.
Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Adv.
13
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jay Kansara, Adv.
Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, AOR
Ms. Saloni Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Chaitanya Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Disha Jham, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsels, the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed
order which is placed on the file.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (SAPNA BANSAL)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
14
