2016 (11) TMI 680 - HC - Customs

Wrongful attachment of immovable property - contents of the communication dated 1-3-2016 - when the kingpin and the husband of the petitioner were involved in the operation of two private limited companies that the communication was addressed to the petitioner and she was called upon to produce the original documents for scrutiny and perusal of the DRI - whether communication to the husband of petitioner, instead of petitioner justified? - Held that - there is a clear dichotomy or contradiction therein. In one breath the reply of the respondent Revenue states that the premises have not been attached or seized, but at the same time they claim to be thoroughly investigating the matter in the light of past history of the petitioner s husband and his association with Badshah Malik. We are of the view that the original documents which are produced by the petitioner enable us to conclude that the Revenue could not have proceeded against the petitioner and addressed the subject communication. Once the petitioner s role has not been pinpointed nor her association with the alleged kingpin, prima facie, also established, then such communication, innocuous as it may appear, has far reaching consequences and hence cannot be sustained. The department has not been able to satisfy even, prima facie, on the contents of the letter dated 1-3-2016 - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Complaint regarding wrongful attachment of immovable property based on allegations of smuggling red sanders. Examination of communication identifying properties allegedly acquired through smuggling. Contradictory responses regarding attachment/seizure of property and investigation based on past history. Prima facie assessment of petitioner's role and association with alleged kingpin.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the High Court complaining about the wrongful attachment of her immovable property based on a communication dated 1-3-2016. The communication identified properties allegedly acquired through smuggling of red sanders by Shri Badshah Majid Malik and others. It mentioned that funds generated from the smuggling were used to purchase properties in Maharashtra. The petitioner, Ghazala Shehroz Malik, clarified that she was the purchaser of a flat in Kohinoor City and denied any business relationship with Badshah Malik. The Revenue alleged that the petitioner's husband, along with Badshah, was involved in floating a company, Empire India Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. The Court noted a contradiction in the Revenue's response, stating that while the premises were not attached or seized, they were investigating based on the husband's association with Badshah Malik. The Court found that the original documents produced by the petitioner did not establish her role or association with the alleged kingpin. As a result, the Court concluded that the communication had far-reaching consequences without prima facie evidence and quashed the impugned communication.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashing and setting aside the communication dated 1-3-2016. The Court highlighted the lack of evidence establishing the petitioner's involvement with the alleged smuggling activities, leading to the decision to invalidate the communication. The judgment emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence before taking actions with significant consequences, ensuring fair treatment and protection of individuals' rights in legal proceedings.