9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has been passed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), in view of the investigation initiated against the petitioner company by Anti Evasion Wing of Central Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate, Jaipur. Vide impugned order, the bank account of the petitioner company was frozen. The impugned order was passed before the amendment in Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 had come in operation. Moreover, as per the amendment also, the account cannot be frozen beyond the period of one year. The bank account of the petitioner be allowed to be operated by the petitioner company - Petition allowed. - D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2366/2020 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2020 - HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Petitioners has referred to a number of decisions, including Khaja Mustafa Kamal v. Union of India 2016 (337) ELT 221 (Bom), Rajendra Vitthal Shinde v. Union of India 2016 (332) ELT 699(Bom) and Laxman Overseas v. Union of India 2010 (252) ELT 512 (Del) where a similar freezing of bank account has been held to be illegal. The decision of this Court in Laxman Overseas v. Union of India (supra) has been followed in Multitek Engineers v. Union of India 2013 (287) ELT 44 (Kar) where the bank accounts were asked to be de- frozen. 13. Learned counsel for the Respondents has referred to another decision dated 16th March, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.12251/2016 (Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Union of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner. A refusal to carry out a duty in accordance with law cannot be justified by such a continued attachment and freezing of the bank accounts. In the given facts and circumstances, we do not see any justification for the same. Further reliance was placed on the case of Khaja Mustafa Kamal vs. Union of India (2016 (337) ELT 221 (Bom.), wherein it was held as under:- 15. If this letter is addressed on 11th September, 2015 and the petitioner is applying from 21st September, 2015, that his bank account be released and the freeze order be withdrawn, then, we do not see how Mr. Jetly can justify the action impugned in the writ petition. It is common ground that when such is the letter addressed to the bank and to the petitioner all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicated that he had bills from one Suhail Ansari but same were issued to several exporters. That is no ground to presume that petitioner's exports were not genuine. All exports were made in accordance with the provisions of law and the practice and procedure of the department. He has explained the entire modus operandi to the Investigating Officer in this letter which is fairly detailed and running into about 15 paragraphs. He has claimed that once he is familiar with the system and has not defrauded the Revenue at all nor made any attempt since 2011, his bank account being frozen is causing serious prejudice and loss to him. 17.Now it is indeed surprising that in the affidavit-in- reply in paragraph 7, the deponent states as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Twenty Four Lakhs only) and availed of duty scrips amounting to ₹ 74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs Only). 18.We have found from a reading of the above paragraph that the petitioner is attributed a clear admission of the guilt. Once there is an admission of guilt, according to the Revenue, then, it is enough justification for their act is the submission of Mr.Jetly. Far from reading any admission of guilt, what we do in order to completely reject the submissions of Mr. Jetly is a reading of the documents annexed to the petition as also the above reproduced paragraph in the affidavit-in-reply as a whole. We cannot pick and choose certain sentences or portions thereof. We are not denying to the Revenue an opportunity of inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of the nature conferred in the Customs Act, 1962, will not permit the respondents to deprive parties like the petitioner of their source of livelihood. They cannot stop their business by continued freezing of their bank accounts. It is further very clear and requires no reiteration that what is prohibited directly cannot be achieved indirectly or in an oblique manner. A refusal to carry out a duty in accordance with law cannot be justified by such a continued attachment and freezing of the bank accounts. In the given facts and circumstances, we do not see any justification for the same. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition. Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, investigation under Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
