2015 (10) TMI 2029 - HC - Customs

Order of attachment of immovable property - Attach not the property of defaulter of duty/penalty amount but that of a third party - Acts of authorities are patently wrongful and illegal and affects right, title and interest of Petitioner - Stand of Department is that execution of Gift Deed and its subsequent registration will not in any manner affect the power of authorities to recover government dues. Held That - It is not as if there are no remedies available to question the alleged wrongful act and to establish that it not legal and valid - Petitioner can seek relief as are permissible in law by filing a suit in Civil Court - Keeping all the questions open, writ petition disposed.

Issues:
1. Attachment of immovable property under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Legality of attaching the property of a third party.
3. Remedies available to challenge wrongful acts by authorities.
4. Disputed issues regarding right, title, and interest in immovable property.
5. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition.

Issue 1: Attachment of immovable property under the Customs Act, 1962
The petitioner argued that the order of attachment of the immovable property was aimed at a third party and not the defaulter of duty/penalty under the Customs Act. Even though the order mentioned the petitioner's husband as a defaulter, referencing a Gift Deed executed by him, the petitioner claimed it was wrongful and illegal, affecting her independent right, title, and interest in the property.

Issue 2: Legality of attaching the property of a third party
The petitioner contended that the property attachment was unjust as there were no recovery proceedings against her, and her husband being an alleged defaulter did not justify attaching her property. She asserted that her right, title, and interest in the property were established through the execution and registration of the Gift Deed, emphasizing that her property should not be subject to attachment.

Issue 3: Remedies available to challenge wrongful acts by authorities
The court noted that the petitioner had remedies available to contest the alleged wrongful acts by authorities. It was highlighted that filing a suit in a competent Civil Court to claim right, title, and interest in the property, and involving necessary parties, was a viable and effective alternative to address disputed issues regarding property rights, rather than seeking resolution through a writ petition.

Issue 4: Disputed issues regarding right, title, and interest in immovable property
The court acknowledged the highly disputed issues concerning the right, title, and interest in the immovable property. It emphasized that the petitioner could pursue legal remedies through a civil suit to establish her claims and seek appropriate reliefs permissible by law, as the resolution of such contentious matters was more suited for a civil court rather than a writ petition.

Issue 5: Jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition
The court disposed of the writ petition while keeping all contentions open for both parties. It allowed the petitioner to seek reliefs permissible by law, including addressing concerns about the continuing attachment of the property and applying for interim reliefs based on apprehensions of potential sale or disposal of the property. The petitioner was also advised to consider benefits available under the Limitation Act, 1963, to exclude the time spent on the writ petition for calculating the limitation period for filing a civil suit, while maintaining all questions regarding the court's jurisdiction and the proceedings' maintainability.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of property attachment under the Customs Act, legality of attaching a third party's property, available remedies to challenge wrongful acts, disputed property rights, and the jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition, providing guidance on seeking appropriate legal recourse and reliefs through civil court proceedings.

← Previous Next →