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 Court at Indore by three separate petitioners. Writ Petition No.15169 of 2024 was filed by Sequel Logistics Private Limited; Writ

Signature Not Ve P rifi e d tition No.6850 of 2024 was filed by Amit Sharma and Writ DKD1R6 Ai a e g :t a V 5 i e t s3 aI:T o : l 2 l 0 A n y 03: s 2 P I i 6 S gA. n T H0 e 3Ud .1J b 1A8 y 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 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 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?

Issue No.3. Whether Arihant Jewelers is entitled to get back the jewelry belon