2012 (10) TMI 629 - HC - Customs

Writ petition denial of Target plus scheme - request for copies of letters of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - petitioner stating that the demand notice is misconceived, requested to provide the copies of the report of DRI, to enable them to submit a detailed reply Held that - Petitioner is not entitled to, as a matter of right to seek for internal communications or inter departmental communications that to at the stage of show cause notice and more so when, such internal communication emanating from a specialized investigating agency - show cause notice is based on the records obtained by DRI from the petitioner s bankers, copies of which along with all relevant details have been furnished to the petitioner - there is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the stand taken by the respondent - writ petition fails and it is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to communication denying access to DRI report for show cause notice reply.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged a communication from the respondent denying access to Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) reports for the petitioner's reply to a show cause notice. The petitioner, an export company, sought DRI reports to respond to a demand notice regarding alleged misutilization of a Target Plus Scheme license. The respondent argued that DRI reports are internal references crucial to ongoing investigations and not to be shared. The petitioner contended that denial of documents violated natural justice principles, citing a Supreme Court case. The respondent maintained that DRI reports were shared with the petitioner's bank, providing relevant details for the case. The court noted that the petitioner received bank records but not internal DRI communications, ruling that the denial was justified as the petitioner had no right to such internal documents during a show cause notice stage. The court found no arbitrariness or violation of natural justice, dismissing the writ petition and granting the petitioner 15 days to respond to the show cause notice.

This judgment highlights the balance between the petitioner's right to information for a fair defense and the government's need to protect ongoing investigations. The court emphasized that while certain information was shared with the petitioner, internal DRI communications were not to be disclosed at the show cause notice stage. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in administrative actions, ensuring parties have access to relevant information while safeguarding sensitive investigative materials.