Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (9) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er to seek release of goods. A plain and combined reading of Sections 110(2), 124 and 110A spells out that any order for provisional release shall not take away the right of the assessee under Section 110(2) read with Section 124 of the Act - where no action was initiated by way of issuance of show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Act within six months or extended period stipulated under Section 110(2) of the Act, the person from whose possession the goods were seized becomes entitled to their return - The remedy of provisional release was independent of remedy of claiming unconditional release in the absence of issuance of any valid show cause notice during the period of limitation or extended limitation prescribed under Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issued within six months or within another extended time of six months. But if no notice is issued, the authorities under the Act are bound to release the seized goods. The relevant Sections i.e. 110 and 124 of the Act read as under:- 110. Seizure of goods, documents and things. (1) If the proper has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods: Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. (2) Where any goods are seized under sub- section (1) and no notice in respect ther .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Supreme Court reported in a case of Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through C.B.I, Bombay (II) 1994(5) SCC 410. The Court while considering the provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, held that the right to bail in accordance with Section 20(4) (bb) of the TADA Act read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a right of bail only from the time of default of completion of the investigation till the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed. Reliance is also placed upon judgment of Bombay High Court in Jayant Hansraj Shah Vs. Union of India 2008 (229) ELT 339. It is, thus, contended that though the petitioner may have a right to seek release .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It cannot be disputed that Section 110 sub section (2) contemplates either notice (within six months from the date of seizure) to the person from whose possession the goods have been seized in order to determine whether the goods should be confiscated or the restoration of the goods to such person on the expiry of that period. If the notice is not issued in the confiscation proceedings within six months from the date of seizure the person from whose possession the goods have been seized becomes immediately entitled to return of the goods. It is that right to the immediate restoration of the goods upon the expiry of six months from the date of seizure that is defeated by the extension of time under the proviso of Section 110(2). Same v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urt examining the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in I.J. Rao s case (supra), we do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the revenue. Mere fact that show cause notice has been issued after the filing of the present petition will not defeat the right of the petitioner to seek release of goods. The judgment in Sanjay Dutt s case (supra) interprets provisions of a different statute, whereas the judgment in I.J.Rao s case (supra) pertains to the statute in question itself. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the right to possess goods for the inefficiency or in action of the revenue for a period of more than one year. In view of the above, we allow the present petition and d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates