2016 (7) TMI 1274 - HC - Customs

Delivery of documents seized by respondents - the case of petitioner is that at present, he has received total 192 files and 16 files are still with them and due to the aforesaid, he is not in a position to file his reply to the show cause notice or appear before the appropriate authority - respondents take the stand that the petitioner has deliberately adopted dilatory tactics to delay the quasi judicial proceedings initiated vide SCN dated 10-4-2014. Petitioner has adopted a unique modus operandi and by taking a plea of non-receipt of few documents, which are of no relevance to the present case - Held that - no case for issuance of any direction, as prayed in this writ petition is made out - writ petition has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking the delivery of seized records.
2. Petitioner requesting not to take any action without receiving all records.
3. Respondent's argument regarding the return of seized documents.
4. Allegation of petitioner adopting dilatory tactics to delay proceedings.
5. Respondent's stance on the completion of investigations and relevance of documents.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking the delivery of all original records seized by the respondents. The petitioner requested the delivery of all documents, both relied upon and non-relied upon, to prepare a response to a show cause notice. The petitioner highlighted the delay caused by the incomplete return of files, hindering their ability to respond adequately.

2. The respondent, in response, stated that during the search, a total of 203 documents and files were seized, out of which some were already returned to the petitioner. The respondent argued that the petitioner had received a significant number of files and documents, including photocopies of certain seized documents. The respondent emphasized that the remaining documents would be returned upon the completion of pending investigations.

3. The respondent accused the petitioner of employing dilatory tactics to delay the quasi-judicial proceedings initiated through the show cause notice. It was alleged that the petitioner refused to file a reply despite being provided with relied upon documents. The respondent contended that the petitioner's demand for irrelevant documents was an attempt to stall the proceedings at the government's expense. The respondent justified withholding certain documents pending the completion of investigations.

4. The respondent clarified that investigations in some cases were completed, leading to the issuance of show cause notices and orders by adjudicating authorities. However, in cases where investigations were ongoing, documents were not provided to the petitioner. The respondent argued that the petitioner's insistence on receiving all documents, regardless of relevance to the current case, was unwarranted.

5. After considering the arguments presented, the court found no merit in the petitioner's case for issuing directions as requested in the writ petition. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner's claims lacked merit. The judgment emphasized the need for a balanced approach in addressing the delivery of seized documents while considering the stage of investigations and relevance to ongoing proceedings.