Case Law Details
Pramod Kumar Singhal Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Through Director & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
In the case of Pramod Kumar Singhal v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the petitioner sought a directive from the Delhi High Court to the DRI to consider his application dated 26th February 2024 for the release of seized gold bars/cutting bars.
The petitioner, described as a trader in gold jewelry, had sent gold bars/cutting bars for fabrication into gold jewelry. However, upon the return of the articles, they were seized by the DRI, allegedly due to the absence of proper invoices and bills accompanying the consignment.
The petitioner contested that the sale and purchase of the gold articles were not illegal. He subsequently filed an application on 26th February 2024 seeking the release of the seized gold. However, the petitioner claimed that this application had not been disposed of by the DRI.
The Delhi High Court took up the matter for final disposal with the consent of both parties. The counsel for the respondent, representing the DRI, stated that the gold was seized because the transactions lacked proper invoices and bills.
The crux of the petitioner’s plea was for the court to direct the respondents to consider and decide on his application seeking the release of the gold items, which had been pending since February 26, 2024.
In response, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by directing the DRI to review and dispose of the application dated February 26, 2024, in accordance with the law within a period of two weeks from the date of the court’s order.
The court explicitly clarified that its decision did not delve into the merits or legality of the transactions in question, nor did it issue any directive to the respondents regarding the outcome of their decision on the application. The DRI was instructed to assess the application impartially, without being influenced by the court’s order.
In summary, the Delhi High Court’s ruling focused solely on ensuring that the petitioner’s application for the release of seized gold was processed promptly and in compliance with legal procedures. The court refrained from making any judgment on the legality of the transactions and left the decision-making process to the DRI, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal standards.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner seeks a direction to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [“DRI”] to consider the application of the petitioner dated 26.02.2024 seeking release of the seized gold bars/cutting bars.
2. As per the learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is a trader in gold jewellery and had sent gold bars/cutting bars for fabrication of gold jewellery and when articles were received back, the same were seized by DRI on the ground that consignment was not accompanied with proper invoices and bills.
3. Petitioner disputes that the sale and purchase of the gold articles was illegal and has accordingly moved an application dated 26.02.2024 seeking release of the gold. As per the petitioner, said application is still pending and has not been disposed of.
4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents.
5. With the consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal. Learned counsel for respondent submits that gold was seized because the transactions were not evidenced by proper invoices and bills.
6. By the said petition, petitioner only seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the application dated 26.02.2024 seeking release of gold items.
7. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 1 to dispose of the application dated 26.02.2024 in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today.
8. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits or legality of the transactions or issued any direction to the respondents to decide the application in a particular manner. It would be open to respondent No. 1 to consider the application in accordance with law without being influenced by anything stated in this order.
9. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Author Bio
