Case Law Details
Padmavati Industries Vs Commissioner Of Customs – Preventive (Rajasthan High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the freezing of the bank account of the petitioner was undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner (Customs) under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified in law?
High Court states that the investigation under Central Goods and Service Tax Act is pending against the petitioner company. However, the impugned order has been passed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), in view of the investigation initiated against the petitioner company by Anti Evasion Wing of Central Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate, Jaipur. Vide impugned order, the bank account of the petitioner company was frozen. The impugned order was passed before the amendment in Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 had come in operation. Moreover, as per the amendment also, the account cannot be frozen beyond the period of one year. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Consequently, the bank account of the petitioner be allowed to be operated by the petitioner company.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Petitioner has filed the petition challenging the order Annexure-3 dated 4.6.2019, whereby, bank account of the petitioner company was frozen.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
