Allowing the petition the Court held that  the seizure  was  illegal and all consequential actions based on such seizure were illegal and contrary to the provisions of section 132(1)(iii). The claim for the goods in terms of section 132(1)(iii) had been made by the two firms as the jewellery seized in stock-in-trade and the required material had already been placed before the Income-tax authorities. The jewellery was required to be released as the seizure itself was unjustified and illegal. The petitioners would also be entitled to interest of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh which was paid as a gross amount towards retention of the jewellery which was stock-in-trade and was marketable. Court also observed that the Seizure has to be effected after due care and caution. Merely on account of reasons to suspect, seizure of goods ought not to be undertaken as held in Khem Chand Mukim v. PDIT (Inv) (2020) 423 ITR 129 (Delhi) (HC)