The petitioners’ gold and jewellery were seized at Bhubaneswar Airport on 12 May 2024. They contended that the seizure was illegal and ultra vires under Section 132(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, as the provision prohibits seizure of stock-in-trade and only allows for an inventory to be made. The revenue, however, disputed the date of seizure, asserting that it occurred on 1 June 2024, and argued that the petitioners had an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 132B. The petitioners submitted clarifications regarding their statement recorded under Section 131(1A) on 10 July 2024. However, they did not raise any specific plea at that stage regarding the seizure being ultra vires or demand the return of the seized gold and jewellery. The court observed that a writ of mandamus requires a prior demand for justice followed by a refusal. Since no such demand was evident, the court granted the petitioners one week to make a formal demand with full particulars and reference to the relevant legal provisions. The revenue was directed to respond within two weeks of receiving the demand, granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order addressing all contentions, including those based on the proviso to Section 132(1)(iii). The court disposed of the petition with these directions, leaving all contentions open for adjudication by the revenue authorities. [WP. No. 12902/2024, dt. 24.02.2025]