IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D.N. RAY, JJ.
M/s Pacific Powertech Solutions - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 10754 of 2024
Decided On : 04-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 108 and 110 - Provisional attachment of bank accounts and summons issued for investigation - Petitioner challenged the legality of the investigation and attachment, asserting that the goods were purchased from a local seller and were cleared for home consumption - Court found that the respondents exceeded their jurisdiction in detaining the goods and attaching the bank accounts without any pending demand or proceedings against the petitioner - The investigation against the petitioner was deemed unwarranted and harassment - The petitioner was declared a bona fide purchaser of the goods. (Paras 28, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court held that it had territorial jurisdiction as the petitioner received summons within its jurisdiction, and the primary test of territorial jurisdiction was met. (Paras 6.15, 6.16)
(C) Investigation - The court emphasized that the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the continued investigation against the petitioner, who had cooperated with the summons issued. (Paras 14, 18)
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Dr.Sujay Kantawalla with learned advocate Mr.Anupam Dighe with learned advocate Mr.Kartikey D. Kanojiya for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General Mr.Devang Vyas with learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave with learned advocate Mr.C.B. Gupta for the respondents.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave and learned advocate Mr.C.B.Gupta waives service of notice of rule for on behalf of the respective respondents.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
“a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that
i. the investigation carried by the office of Respondent No.2 is not just and fair and the conduct of the Respondents against the Petitioner herein in pursuance to F.No.GEN/INT/MISC/26/2023, is unwarranted and illegal;
ii. that the continuous provisional attachment of the Petitioner's Bank Account No.6311621118 and Petitioner's Proprietor's Bank Account No. 7211434006 is without any authority of law;
b. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondents, their servants, subordinates, and agents:
i. to withdraw Summons dated 07.06.2024 bearing F.No. F.No.GEN/INT/MISC/26/2023 (Annexure - C) and any subsequent Summons issued to the Petitioner;
ii. to refrain from issuing further Summons to the Petitioner seeking for documents related to M/s S.T. Electricals;
iii. to defreeze the Petitioner's Bank Account No. 6311621118 and Petitioner's Proprietor's Bank Account No.7211434006 held with Respondent No.4 bank;
c. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling for records and proceedings dealing with Summons dated 07.06.2024 bearing F. No. F. No. GEN/INT/MISC/26/2023 (Annexure- C) and after going into the legality, propriety and validity thereof, to quash and set aside the same.
d. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents Nos. 2, and 3, their servants, subordinates, and agents to cease and desist from issuing further Summons to the Petitioner in terms of Investigation under F. No. GEN/INT/MISC/26/2023;
e. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents:
i. to refrain from issuing further Summons to the Petitioner seeking documents related to M/s S.T. Electricals;
ii. to defreeze the Petitioner's Bank Account No. 6311621118 and Petitioner's Proprietor's Bank Account No. 7211434006 held with Respondent No. 4 bank;
iii. to refrain from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner in furtherance to proceedings under F. No.GEN/INT/MISC/26/2023;”
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this petition can be summarised as under :
4.1. The petitioner is engaged in business of trading of (Cold Rolled Grain Oriented) CRGO Strips, Sheets, etc. During Financial Year 2023-24, the petitioner made purchase and sale transactions with one M/s. S. T. Electricals for “CRGO Strips”.
4.2. The respondent No.2-Commissioner of Customs (Prevantive), Jaipur initiated inquiry against M/s. S. T. Electricals in respect to an import made by it vide Bill of Entry No.5525864 dated 15.04.2023.
4.3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.07.2023, the petitioner found that its Bank Accounts having Bank Account No.6311621118 and Bank Account No.7211434006 with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited were put under a “Debit Freeze” by the respondent No.4-Kotak Mahindra Bank.
4.4. On inquiry, the petitioner was informed that the said action was carried out as per directions from the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the respondent No.3-Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur issued summons on 17.05.2024 to
The court ruled that the provisional attachment of bank accounts and summons issued for investigation were illegal, as the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of goods cleared for home consumption, ....
The court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the statutory pre-conditions for the exercise of the power of provisional attachment under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act.
Order of Detention and seizure quashed - Absence of any proper opportunity to petitioner also, the civil liabilities of petitioner company demanding the huge amount of custom duty would be impermissi....
Possession of smuggled goods under the Customs Act confirms liability for prosecution without proper documentation; the accused must prove otherwise.
The Enforcement Directorate's actions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were deemed lawful, given the justified reason to believe that violations had occurred, affirming the legality of the s....
The freezing of a bank account requires a written order based on tangible material, failing which the action is illegal.
The court established that provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act requires tangible evidence of necessity to protect government revenue, and such powers must be exercised with cautio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the availability of a statutory remedy under the Customs Act and the failure of the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority despite the libe....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.