2008 (4) TMI 324 - HC - Customs

Unaccounted money - illegal purchases - order or direction to quash and set aside the demand Notice Held that - In the opinion of this Court, the second notice dated 22-9-1988 is issued against the petitioner in continuation of the first notice dated 22-11-1979 and merely because there is absence of reference to the first notice in the second notice, it could not be said that the second notice was not issued in pursuance of the first notice dated 22-11-1979. It may be noted that the appellate Tribunal while dealing with this issue has rightly held that the present petitioner had made voluntary disclosure as a calculated plan to regularise the earnings from his illegal activities . As regards the savings from salary to the tune of ₹ 30,000/- during 1966 to 1968, the present petitioner has failed to produce any proof worth the name, leave apart salary slip, not even the identity card, of having served as a seaman in the Navigation Department. There is a concurrent finding of facts by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority, and therefore, this Court cannot enter into the arena of re-appreciation of evidence on record to come to a different conclusion than the one taken by the authorities below. The scope of the powers while dealing with a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited and must be confined strictly to the errors apparent on the face of the record. In this petition no grounds exist which would justify this Court to interfere as no evidence whatsoever has been produced to show that the properties in question were purchased out of licit source of income by the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned orders as well as the notice cannot be quashed and set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the Notice dated 22-9-1988 and subsequent orders under SAFEMA.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, a fisherman and agriculturist, challenged a notice issued under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA based on a prior conviction under the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the notice and subsequent orders rendered them invalid. The petitioner contended that the properties in question were acquired through legal means, including voluntary disclosure of income to the Income-tax Department.

2. The Central Government Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner's brother was detained under related laws, justifying the notice against the petitioner. It was highlighted that the petitioner's conviction under the Customs Act provided a cause of action for the notice. The authorities maintained that the proceedings were initiated within a reasonable time and that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of legal income sources for property acquisition.

3. The Court noted that the delay in proceedings was due to a stay granted earlier, and upon its vacation, the second notice was issued promptly. The Court observed that the second notice was a continuation of the first notice, both concerning the same properties and individual. The Court emphasized that the authorities acted within their jurisdiction and the notice was not invalidated by the absence of reference to the first notice in the second notice.

4. Regarding the petitioner's income sources, the Court found that the voluntary disclosure was seen as an attempt to regularize earnings from potentially illegal activities. The petitioner's failure to substantiate salary savings and employment details further weakened their case. The Court upheld the reasoning and conclusions of the competent and appellate authorities, emphasizing the limited scope of interference in such matters under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that no grounds justified interference with the impugned orders. The lack of evidence demonstrating legitimate property acquisition sources led to the rejection of the petition. The Court discharged the rule without costs, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.