JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner has tendered the draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondents. 3. This Court passed the following order on 07.08.2025:- “Heard learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the petitioner through video conference and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili D. Mehta for the respondents. It was submitted by learned advocate Ms. Parikh that inspite of repeated reminders and requests, the respondents are not releasing the gold ornaments weighing 475.20 grams and books of accounts though there is no outstanding liability of income tax to be paid by the petitioner. Learned advocate Ms. Parikh referred to the chronology of events which have taken place and pointed out that in the year 2022 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the petitioner has made payment of outstanding tax and the order giving effect was passed by the respondent on 29th June, 2022 accepting such payment. Learned advocate Ms. Parikh also invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 28th April, 2025 passed under the Right to Information Act wherein it is stated as under : “3. It is submitted that in the case of Shri Dharmeshkumar Gautamkumar Sutaria (PAN: AKUPS3619R), from perusal of online systems, it is observed that, no demand is outstanding. Further, in this case, no proceedings i.e. Assessment, Penalty and Prosecution is pending with the office of the undersigned. In this case, it is also observed that the PAN of the assessee has been received by transfer on 23.06.2017. Copy of PAN History attached. No case records are received and found in this office. No any approval of retention is accorded by the office of the undersigned.” It was therefore, submitted that the respondent authorities are sitting tight over the matters by not releasing the gold ornaments and the books of accounts which were seized in the year 1994. Considering the above submissions, issue notice for final disposal returnable on 1st September, 2025. Direct service through email is permitted. To be listed on top of the Board.” 4. The brief facts of the case are as under : 4.1. The petitioner is an individual as well as Karta of the HUF. Considering the above submissions, issue notice for final disposal returnable on 1st September, 2025. Direct service through email is permitted. To be listed on top of the Board.” 4. The brief facts of the case are as under : 4.1. The petitioner is an individual as well as Karta of the HUF. The petitioner being Karta of HUF is a partner in two partnership firms namely, M/s. Angan Enterprise and M/s. Akruti Land Developers and Organizers. The search took place on 10.08.1994 and 05.10.1994 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 (For short “the Act”) at the premises of the petitioner as HUF at the same place in connection with both the partnership firms. 4.2. During the course of search, ornaments of the family of the petitioner were seized from the residential premises. A demand was raised in the case of both the partnership firms for the Assessment Years 1993-94 to 1995-96 and assessment was framed by the concerned Assessing Officer by order dated 31.03.1997 and order dated 26.03.1998 against which appeals were preferred by the assessee and the CIT (Appeals) by order dated 18.11.1998 and order dated 08.10.2003 upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 4.3 Against the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals), appeals were preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT (Appeals) by orders dated 22.09.2006 and 18.10.2006. During the pendency of the appeals before the CIT (Appeals) after the remand of the matter by the Tribunal, the petitioner in both the firms decided to settle the pending appeals under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and filed declarations in the prescribed form, consequent to which the designated authority issued Form 3 accepting the declaration made by both the firms whereby the amount payable for settling the appeals pending before the CIT (Appeals) was duly paid and intimation in Form 4 was filed. Consequently, certificate in Form 5 was issued on 10.09.2021, 19.10.2021 and 01.06.2021 whereby declaration made by both the firms for settling the appeals pending before the CIT (Appeals) was accepted. 5. Consequently, certificate in Form 5 was issued on 10.09.2021, 19.10.2021 and 01.06.2021 whereby declaration made by both the firms for settling the appeals pending before the CIT (Appeals) was accepted. 5. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that thereafter the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of both the firms passed the orders giving effect to Form 5 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 05.07.2022 and 27.10.2022 deleting the demand and hence there is no outstanding demand in the case of both the firms. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that no demand is due and payable by the petitioner and/or of the HUF being partner of both the firms. The petitioner thereafter by letter dated 24.05.2023 addressed to the respondent no. 2 - The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3) 1, Aaykar Bhavan, Ahmedabad made an application for release of the seized jewellery and books of accounts during the course of search by stating the fact that there is no outstanding dues to be paid by the petitioner. 5.1. The petitioner thereafter by letter dated 24.05.2023 provided respondent no. 2 the original copy of the affidavit-cum- indemnity with regard to the seized ornaments and by such affidavit in the capacity as HUF, the petitioner reiterated the contents of the application for release of the seized ornaments and further stated that he shall indemnify the department if such claim for release of seized ornament by the department is proved to be wrong. 5.2. The petitioner would also indemnify the department for the loss, if any, to be suffered due to release of the ornaments and other assets. The petitioner thereafter by letter dated 12.10.2023 sent reminder for release of the seized ornaments and books of accounts followed by letter dated 24.01.2024 addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1) (1), Ahmedabad. It is the case of the petitioner that by letter dated 29.03.2024, the respondent no. 2 asked the petitioner to explain the queries raised therein which were replied by the petitioner immediately on the same day tendering the explanation regarding the difference in status of the HUF and individual as under :- ? Explanation regarding the difference in status of the HUF and Individual (the Petitioner herein) was given :- ? 2 asked the petitioner to explain the queries raised therein which were replied by the petitioner immediately on the same day tendering the explanation regarding the difference in status of the HUF and individual as under :- ? Explanation regarding the difference in status of the HUF and Individual (the Petitioner herein) was given :- ? The applicant for release of ornaments and books of accounts is the HUF since there was search in case of both the firms and their Partners (and the HUF being one of the Partners in both the firms. ? Ornaments of the family of the Petitioner were seized during the search proceedings. ? Search authorities prepared the panchnama and inventory list in the name of the Petitioner. ? Address of the Petitioner and the HUF was same, where the search and seizure took place. ? All the ornaments were lying at the residential premises of the Petitioner. ? Even if panchnama and inventory of ornaments were prepared in the name of the Petitioner, all notices and summons were issued by the concerned authority in the name of the HUF. ? Copies of such notices, panchnama and list of inventories were also enclosed. ? Requested to treat the application of release of jewellery made by the Petitioner and not as Karta of the HUF. ? Details of jurisdictional assessing officers of the Petitioner, the HUF as well as of both the firms. ? Status of any demand outstanding in case of Petitioner: None. Copy of screenshot of portal attached. ? Status of any demand outstanding in the case of both the firms: None. Copy of screenshot of portal and orders giving effect to VSVS for all respective years attached. ? Status of any demand outstanding in the case of the HUF: None. As Respondent No. 2 is the assessing officer, he/she can also verify the same.” 6. The petitioner thereafter raised a grievance before the Centralized Public Grievance Redressal and Monitoring System on 04.03.2025 as there was no response from the respondents wherein the details of the application dated 24.05.2023 were reiterated. In addition to this, the petitioner also filed application dated 04.03.2025 under the Right to Information Act addressed to the respondent no. The petitioner thereafter raised a grievance before the Centralized Public Grievance Redressal and Monitoring System on 04.03.2025 as there was no response from the respondents wherein the details of the application dated 24.05.2023 were reiterated. In addition to this, the petitioner also filed application dated 04.03.2025 under the Right to Information Act addressed to the respondent no. 2 seeking copies of assessment orders and all papers and challans of demand tax paid for Assessment Years 1993-94 to 1995-96 along with complete details and documents of demands outstanding and payable by the petitioner for any assessment years. The petitioner also requested the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, by letter dated 04.03.2025 to instruct the respondent no. 2 to release the jewellery and books of accounts and to intervene in the matter since the issue was not resolved. 6.1. The petitioner thereafter by another letter dated 05.03.2025 addressed to the respondent no. 1 made a similar request followed by letter dated 13.03.2025 along with the copies of the affidavits-cum-indemnity bonds executed by the petitioner. The petitioner again by letter dated 28.03.2025 provided original copies of the affidavits-cum-indemnity bonds of the petitioner, wife of the petitioner and son of the petitioner. Subsequently, the authorized representatives on behalf of the petitioner and the HUF filed two Right to Information applications on 16.04.2025 and 17.04.2025 addressed to respondent no. 2 seeking the same details and documents as sought vide RTI application dated 04.03.2025. In response to the RTI applications, the authorized representative received a letter dated 22.04.2025 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2) (1), Ahmedabad asking for authority letter to further seek information, which was provided by the authorized representative on behalf of the petitioner vide letter dated 24.04.2025. The petitioner thereafter received a letter dated 28.04.2025 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1) Ahmedabad seeking various details amongst the other details stating that on perusal of the online system there is no outstanding demand in the case of the petitioner as well as no assessment, penalty and prosecution proceedings are pending. Paragraph 3 of the letter states as under:- “3. It is submitted that in the case of Shri Dharmeshkumar Gautamkumar Sutaira (PAN: AKUPS3619R), from perusal of online systems, it is observed that, no demand is outstanding. Further, in this case, no proceedings i.e. Assessment, Penalty and Prosecution is pending with the office of the undersigned. Paragraph 3 of the letter states as under:- “3. It is submitted that in the case of Shri Dharmeshkumar Gautamkumar Sutaira (PAN: AKUPS3619R), from perusal of online systems, it is observed that, no demand is outstanding. Further, in this case, no proceedings i.e. Assessment, Penalty and Prosecution is pending with the office of the undersigned. In this case, it is also observed that the PAN of the assessee has been received by transfer on 23.06.2017. Copy of PAN History attached. No case records are received and found in this office. No any approval or retention is accorded by the office of the undersigned.” 7. On receipt of the aforesaid information that there is no outstanding demand against the petitioner, the petitioner again by letter dated 06.06.2025 requested respondent no. 1 to direct the respondent no. 2 to release the seized ornaments and books of accounts of the family members. The petitioner after exhausting all the remedies as stated herein-above has preferred this petition with the following prayers :- “7(a) direct the respondent authorities to forthwith release jewellery and books of accounts seized during the course of search carried out under Section 132 (5) of the Act on 10.08.1994 and 05.10.1994 which is 475.20 grams in weight; (b) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, direct the Respondent authorities to forthwith release jewellery and books of accounts seized during the course of search action carried out under Section 132 (5) of the Act on 10.08.1994 and 05.10.1994 which is 475.20 grams in weight;” 8. Learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner submitted that as stated in the reply to the Right to Information applications there is no outstanding demand against the petitioner and, therefore, the ornaments seized during the course of search in the year 1994 be ordered to be released forthwith. 9. In response to the notice issued by this Court on 07.08.2025 for final disposal of the petition, learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondents submitted that she has received the instructions on E-mail on 29.08.2025 and she is in the process of drafting reply. On a query raised by this Court, it was submitted on perusal of the remarks that the respondents are again requiring the details of the ownership of the ornaments. Maithili Mehta for the respondents submitted that she has received the instructions on E-mail on 29.08.2025 and she is in the process of drafting reply. On a query raised by this Court, it was submitted on perusal of the remarks that the respondents are again requiring the details of the ownership of the ornaments. Be that as it may, the petitioner has already filed the indemnity bond and the affidavits before the respondent authorities as required by them and now there is a reply given by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 4(1), Ahmedabad as quoted herein-above that there is no outstanding demand in the case of the petitioner and no proceedings of assessment, penalty or prosecution is pending. 10. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to release the seized ornaments and books of accounts during the course of search in the year 1994 forthwith and compliance report be placed before this Court within a period of one week. Stand over to 09.09.2025. Direct Service through E-mail is permitted.