TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding that there is no time period for issuing an order of seizure under Section 110 of the Act. - 128 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2011 - Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Sambuddha Chakrabarti, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Shibdas Banerjee, for the Appellant. Shri R. Bharadwaj for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.]. This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ-petitioner and is directed against an order dated 17th February, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge disposed of a writ-application filed by the appellant by directing that the detained consignment of the writ-petitioner should be immediately released if no show-cause notice under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, 2011 has been issued to the writ-petitioner purportedly under Section 110(2) of the Act for extension of time to issue show-cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Act for further period of six months but according to the learned Judge, the said notice was apparently without any authority as there was no scope for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue any notice to the writ-petitioner under Section 110(2) of the Act. The learned Judge further found that the Authorities had proceeded on the basis that the goods had been detained in exercise of power under Section 110 and accordingly, purported to issue the aforesaid notice under Section 110(2) of the Act. His Lordship further held that actually there is no order of seizure or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired about the status of the goods loaded in those trucks, no appropriate documents were found available with the competent authority. Even subsequently, no Bill of Export was placed before the authority of Petrapole Land Customs Station Authority showing any document intending to export the same. It is further stated that the goods were detained for the purpose of investigation based on specific intelligence that those goods were attempted to be exported illegally for unlawful gain of Duty Exempted Pass Book (DEPB) credit and that the investigation proceeding had not attained its finality. 6. From the aforesaid averment, it is clear that although no specific order of seizure has been issued to the writ-petitioner, it is apparent that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady pointed out that the act of detention itself is sufficient to imply running of time under Section 124(a) of the Act and notwithstanding the fact that no formal order of seizer has been passed, the owner of the consignment can avail of the provision contained in Section 110(2) of the Act from the date of detention of the goods. 9. The appeal is, thus, disposed of with the above observations by modifying the order impugned only to the extent indicated above. We make it clear that we have otherwise not gone into the question whether extension of time under Section 110(2) of the Act in this case was justified or not and the disposal of this appeal will not stand in the way of the appellant in seeking appropriate remedy before appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
