Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Amit Harishkumar Doctor Vs Union Of India (Gujarat High Court)
Appeal Number : Special Civil Application No. 4495 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/02/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Amit Harishkumar Doctor Vs Union Of India (Gujarat High Court)

Facts- The petitioner, a sole proprietor, is engaged in the business of textile trading and export. During a search proceeding, on 03.04.2019, the department seized cash amount of Rs.35,99,000/- belonging to the petitioner and his family members and two mobile phones also were seized by the officers. A show cause notice was issued on 27.11.2020, i.e. after almost 19 months, alleging illegal export by one M/s.Amira Impex in connivance of number of other persons which included the petitioner. The goods were later proposed to be confiscated.

Conclusion- Mandate of Section 110(2) of the Act is crystal clear that if no notice is given under clause (a) of section 124 of the Act for confiscation within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs for reasons to be recorded in writing can extend this period, not exceeding the period of six months and inform the concerned person from whom such goods were seized before expiry of the period so specified. It is further needed to be specified that where an order for provisional release of the seized goods has been passed under Section 110A of the Act, the specified period of six months shall not apply.

In the instant case, admittedly there has been no provisional release of the seized goods. Further extension of six months with the reasoned order by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs also is completely missing. The period of six months from the date of signature expired on 03.10.2019.

Even further period of six months as provided in the first proviso to Section 110(2) also got over on 03.04.2020. Of course, in absence of any order, much less reasoned order by prescribed authority, extension would need to be disregarded yet, the respondents chose not to return the seized currency or mobile phones and the request of the petitioner has not been addressed nor replied to.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031