9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 97 - HC - Income TaxRetention of petitioner s passport by department held that impounding of the passport could not be made by having recourse to Income Tax Act, regulating the seizure of documents - Directorate of Enforcement is directed to return the passport - non furnishing the details of accounts to revenue - Thus, in order to balance the equities between the parties, we consider it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to furnish to the Respondents all these statements with details of transactions
Issues Involved:
1. Authority to impound a passport. 2. Applicability of the Passports Act versus other statutes. 3. Right to personal liberty and to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution. 4. Due process and opportunity of hearing before impounding a passport. 5. Equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Authority to Impound a Passport: The Petitioner contended that only the authority under the Passports Act has the legal power to impound a passport. The Respondent's retention of the passport under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the Income Tax Act was challenged. The Court agreed with the Petitioner, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation*, which held that the Passports Act is a complete code for matters related to impounding passports. The Court emphasized that the term "documents" in Section 131(3) of the Income Tax Act does not include passports, and thus the Respondent's action lacked legal authority. 2. Applicability of the Passports Act Versus Other Statutes: The Court examined whether other statutes, such as FEMA and the Income Tax Act, could override the specific provisions of the Passports Act. The Respondent argued that Section 23 of the Passports Act allows for additional provisions under other enactments. However, the Court held that the Passports Act, being a special statute, takes precedence over general provisions in other laws. This principle was supported by the maxim *generalia specialibus non derogant* (general provisions do not derogate from special provisions). 3. Right to Personal Liberty and to Travel Abroad Under Article 21: The Petitioner argued that impounding the passport without due process violated his right to personal liberty and to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court referenced *Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Union of India* and *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India*, which protect the right to travel abroad against executive interference not supported by law. The Court concluded that the Respondent's actions were contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Passports Act and thus violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights. 4. Due Process and Opportunity of Hearing Before Impounding a Passport: The Petitioner asserted that impounding a passport results in adverse civil consequences and requires an opportunity for a hearing. The Court agreed, noting that the Respondents did not follow the due process outlined in the Passports Act, which mandates an opportunity for the affected person to be heard before such an action is taken. 5. Equitable Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution: While the law favored the Petitioner, the Court exercised its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court balanced equities by directing the Petitioner to furnish all relevant account statements and authorize the Respondents to obtain information from his accounts. This condition was set to ensure the Petitioner's cooperation in the ongoing investigation. Upon compliance, the Respondents were ordered to return the passport within 15 days. Conclusion: The Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the Respondents to return the Petitioner's passport within 15 days, subject to the Petitioner's compliance with the specified conditions. The order was made without prejudice to the rights of any competent authority to impound the passport under the Passports Act if warranted. Final Order: The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
