Petitioners have filed application for release of seized consignment of jewellery Limitation Consignments of jewellery for delivery to various consignees seized by Static Surveillance Team under guidelines issued by Election Commission and handed over to Income-tax Department Power under section 127 to centralize proceedings. On writ against seizure of cash and jewellery the Court held that,as per the SOP of Election Commission, there has to be satisfaction by the Sate Survellance Team  (SST) or the District Grievance Committee (DGC)  that the seized cash, articles or goods are being transported or in possession of a person concerned belonging to any candidate of the election and brought for influencing the voters. There is absolutely no satisfaction recorded either by SST or by the District Grievance Committee. No FIR was registered against AS, SLPL or any other candidates. Therefore, as per this SOP, these consignments ought to have been released to AS, from whom it was seized, instead of being handed over to the IT Department. SST and District Grievance Committee did not consider the important facts that the vehicle was not carrying any unaccounted cash, election posters, election materials, drugs, arms, etc., except these consignments, which could create suspicion leading to seizure and handing over to the IT Department. It is also not the case with the SST that the vehicle does not belong to SLPL, which is a logistics company. Valuation of the consignment or jewellery, which is more than Rs. 6,00,00,000 became the basis of seizure and information to the IT department. There is no dispute about the employer employee relationship between SLPL and AS and the seizure of consignments by the SST, during the election period, from the vehicle of SLPL in which AS was travelling. When it is a case of AS, he is an employee of SLPL and transporting these jewellery boxes from the consignor of Indore to the consignees of Ratlam, then he is not supposed to disclose, either wholly or partly, his income or property. Documents which were in his possession relating to transportation, viz., bills and invoices, etc., were produced. Hence, all the proceedings initiated under s. 148 against AS are hereby quashed. Words ‘AO’ means the same AO who is dealing with the seized asset, not the AO of the person concerned.AO of person concerned may not have any material or record pertaining to the seizure, therefore, he would not be in a position to pass an effective order. Therefore, the application filed by the AT Jewellers was liable to be considered by the AO, i.e. Dy. CIT, Central-2.Apart from AT Jewellers, whoever is the consignee claiming ownership and release, may submit an application before the same AO.  Writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the Dy. CIT, Central-2 to release the jewellery consignments. Cost of Rs. 50,000 is awarded in favour of all the writ petitioners payable by the respondents severally and jointly.(AY. 2020-21 to 2022-23)