2023 (2) TMI 998 - HC - Customs

Seeking return of Demand Drafts - amount paid voluntarily or not during investigation by DRI - According to the petitioner, the said amount was recovered by coercion, without any order determining the said liability or raising any demand - HELD THAT - Considering the controversy involved in the present case, the learned ASG, on instructions, states that there would be no difficulty in returning the amounts collected while reserving the rights of the respondents to take any further action in accordance with law, including for protection of revenue and for recovery of any amounts that may be determined as due from the petitioner. The respondent shall refund the amount of ₹79,00,000/- collected from Mr. Gautam R. Barmecha, by remitting it into his personal savings bank account, from where the amounts were drawn - It is clarified that the respondents are not precluded from taking any other action in accordance with law for preservation of revenue or for recovery of any amount that may be found due from the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Coercive recovery of amount by respondent without a formal order.
2. Voluntariness of statements recorded and payments made by the petitioner.
3. Frozen bank accounts and payments made from personal savings account.
4. Issuance of show cause notice and lack of clear copies of relied upon documents.
5. Refund of the recovered amount and cooperation for adjudication of show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief for the return of Demand Drafts totaling Rs. 79,00,000, alleging coercive recovery without a formal order. The petitioner claimed the amount was paid involuntarily. The respondent admitted the petitioner's appearance for inquiry but disputed the voluntariness of the payments made.

2. The controversy revolved around the voluntariness of statements recorded and payments made by the petitioner. The respondent argued that the statements were voluntary, citing subsequent admissions by the petitioner. However, the petitioner contended that the payments were involuntary, especially since they were made from the proprietor's personal savings account due to frozen business accounts.

3. The frozen bank accounts of the petitioner's business and the payment made from the personal savings account raised concerns about the coercion involved in the recovery process. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the lack of clear copies of relied upon documents, hindering a proper response to the show cause notice issued.

4. The court directed the respondent to refund the collected amount to the petitioner and emphasized the cooperation required for the adjudication of the show cause notice. The order allowed for the return of the amount while preserving the respondent's rights to take further legal actions for revenue protection or recovery of any due amounts.

5. The judgment concluded with instructions for the petitioner to respond to the show cause notices within three weeks and for the adjudication to proceed promptly. The order was passed with the consent of both parties, ensuring the refund of the amount collected and cooperation in the adjudicatory process.