The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the powers conferred by Section 17 on the Enforcement Directorate and the distinction between Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the powers exercised by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA, along with the requirement for the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee and maintain a credit balance in the bank accounts.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders F No.-ECIR/STF/02/2022 dated 5th July, 2022/6th July, 2022 by which a debit freeze was ordered on the various bank accounts of the Petitioners i.e. M/s Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter `Vivo') and M/s Grand Prospect International Communication Pvt. Ltd.(hereinafter `GPICPL').

3. The following direction was issued as an interim order on 13th July 2022 in WP(C) 10382/2022

"Pursuant to the last order passed, the Enforcement Directorate in terms of a communication of 9 July 2022 had called upon the petitioner to provide requisite details in support of its assertion that payments totalling to Rs.2826/- crores were to be made under various heads including in respect of direct and indirect taxes, employees benefits and operating expenses. In response to the aforesaid communication the petitioner is stated to have addressed a letter of 11 July 2022 to the Directorate and has also subsequently provided supporting data as required on a pen drive which has been duly received by the Directorate. Mr. Hossain, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, submits that since the data itself is voluminous the respondents would require a week to duly analyse the same and to attend to the prayers made by the petitioner referable to Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. Let the Enforcement Directorate proceed in this regard accordingly.

Notice. Since the respondent is duly represented by learned counsel, let a counter affidavit be filed within a period of one week. The petitioner may file its response thereto within a period of 48 hours of service.

The Court takes note of the submission of Mr. Agarwal, learned senior counsel who contends that the debit freeze orders impugned here would not sustain since the details of the bank accounts which were maintained by the petitioner were known to the respondents. Referring the Court to the powers conferred by Section 17 on the Enforcement Directorate, Mr. Agarwal would submit that details of accounts which were otherwise available could not have been subjected to a debit freeze in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 17(1A). Learned senior counsel has in this behalf placed reliance on the decisions rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Motilal & Ors. vs. Preventive Intelligence Officer, Central Excise and Customs, Agra & Ors., [(1971) 80 ITR 418] as well as of this Court in Shri Lal Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., [1992 (22) DRJ 1]. It was further pointed out that the decision in Motilal also stands affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tarsen Kumar, [161 ITR 505].

Mr. Hossain, on the other hand, would submit that the ambit and scope of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is clearly distinct and different from the powers which are exercised by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA. Learned counsel referring to the unambiguous recitals as appearing in the impugned debit freeze orders would submit that it was only material which was found and gathered during the search that forms the basis for action taken under Section 17(1A). Learned counsel further contends that the search revealed material on the basis of which it came to light that proceeds of crime had been "secreted" in the mentioned bank accounts. Matter requires consideration.

Mr. Agarwal, learned senior counsel on instructions had apprised the Court that the respondents have already debit freezed accounts which held a sum of Rs.251 crores approximately to their credit. Bearing in mind the contention of the respondent that the proceeds of crime is presently quantified at Rs.1200 crores, it was submitted that the petitioner are ready and willing to furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.950 crores without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the writ petition. Th