TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER This writ petition is directed against the respondents on account of the fact that the respondents are not releasing the car (Lexus LS 460) imported by the petitioner which was seized by respondent No. 1 on 26-4-2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that no show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 had been issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. In the present case, the car was seized on 26-4-2011 and the period of one year expired on 25-4-2012. No show cause notice was issued during that period. However, a show cause notice has been issued subsequently on 16-5-2012. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the car is liable to be released to the petitioner on account of the mandatory provisions of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to place reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay : (1995) Cri LJ 477. However, this Court has already taken the view in Jatin Ahuja s case that the provisions of Section 110(2) are mandatory and, as a result of which, if no show cause notice is issued within the period stipulated under Section 110(2), there is no option left with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
