The provisions of Sections 132(5) and 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, require the return of seized assets to the assessee once the assessed dues are paid off, and the provisions of Section 159 of the Act can only be invoked by the Recovery Officer while proceeding for the recovery of the dues pertaining to the deceased and cannot be used to retain the seized properties of a different assessee.

M.C. Agrawal, J.

1. BY this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs :

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and to quash the impugned order dated September 29, 1997, passed by respondent No. 1 (annexure-16 to the writ petition) ;

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 1 to forthwith release the jewellery seized from locker No. 47-A, New Bank of India, Unnao, on August 6, 1986 (details contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the two N. S. Cs. Nos. 092455 and 092456 of Rs. 5,000 each ;

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 20,000 for the loss caused by illegally detaining the N. S. Cs. for a period of more than five years ;

(iv) issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to compensate the petitioner for mental agony and harassment caused solely on account of grossly illegal acts of the said respondents and its officers for no fault of the petitioner, such compensation being not less than Rs. 50,000."

2. THE petitioner's case is that during the period July 25, 1986, to August 6, 1986, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the income-tax authorities at the residential premises of the petitioner and her husband, Sri Kripa Shanker Sengar. During the course of the said search several items of property were seized. Amongst them were two National Savings Certificates bearing Nos. 092455 and 092456 of Rs. 5,000 each that were purchased by the petitioner on March 5, 1986. THE petitioner claimed the same belong to her and have been found to belong to her. In addition jewellery valued at Rs. 1,74,788 was also seized which the petitioner claimed to belong to her and was held to be so. THE petitioner's case is that her assessments for the relevant assessment years, i.e., 1986-87 and 1987-88 were settled on March 27, 1989 and March 28, 1989 respectively. THE assessment for the assessment year 1986-87 dealt with the National Savings Certificates while the assessment for the assessment year 1987-88 dealt with the jewellery. She claims that the resultant demand for the two years has been paid off and yet the aforesaid items of her property have not been returned.

The petitioner had earlier come to this court in Writ Petition No. 312 of 1997 seeking release of the aforesaid properties and this court quashed a non-speaking order dated January 15, 1996, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, and directed him to pass a fresh speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance with the said order of this court, the Commissioner passed an order dated September 29, 1997, which is the subject of the present writ petition. The Commissioner has again rejected the petitioner's claim for the return of the said properties on the ground that there were income-tax liabilities amounting to Rs. 1,34,248 and interest under Section 220(2) in respect of the petitioner's husband, Sri K. S. Sengar, who had died and from whom the petitioner inherited property No. 655-A, A. B. Nagar, Unnao, and, therefore, as a legal representative of the deceased, Sri K. S. Sengar, the petitioner is liable to pay the aforesaid dues and, therefore, the aforesaid items of property cannot be released. The learned Commissioner further observed that the Department can realise the outstanding taxes of Shri K. S. Sengar from Smt. Shobha Sengar (the petitioner) even by selling immovable assets which are under the possession of the petitioner.

3. WE have heard Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

4. THE contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the property in question having been seized during a search and seizure operation against her, the same has to be dealt with in terms of the provisions of Sec