9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai and Hyderabad - HELD THAT:- Challenge is to a summons dated 09.02.2024 and proceedings pursuant thereto. Except in extraordinary situations or in cases where the person issuing the summons does not have jurisdiction or authority to do so, it is inappropriate in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with summons' and proceedings pursuant thereto. In this case, the earlier summons and investigation was undertaken by the Customs Department in Hyderabad. The impugned summons was issued by the DRI at Chennai. At this preliminary stage, it is neither advisable nor appropriate to second guess the object and purpose of the investigation. As correctly pointed out by learned junior standing counsel for the third ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the matter admittedly relates to import of gold findings and silver findings. According to him, the subject matter of investigation by the third respondent and the subject matter of the summons issued by the first respondent is identical. Although he concedes that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the DRI) has the jurisdiction to investigate, in view of investigation by the Customs Department in Hyderabad which has progressed with the participation of the petitioner, he submits that the investigation be undertaken in Hyderabad and not in Chennai. 3. In support of this submission, learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in St Thomas Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erabad. On this basis, he contrasts the judgment of the Division Bench, where the Division Bench interfered because the appellant was located in Chennai and all its properties were situated in Chennai. 6. The challenge is to a summons dated 09.02.2024 and proceedings pursuant thereto. Except in extraordinary situations or in cases where the person issuing the summons does not have jurisdiction or authority to do so, it is inappropriate in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with summons' and proceedings pursuant thereto. In this case, the earlier summons and investigation was undertaken by the Customs Department in Hyderabad. The impugned summons was issued by the DRI at Chennai. At this preliminary sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
