TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of petitioner. - W.P.(C) 3793/2017 & W.P.(C) 3848/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2017 - S. MURALIDHAR PRATHIBA M. SINGH JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Ms. Anjali J. Manish and Ms. Nidhi Saini, Advocates Respondents Through: Mr. P.C. Aggarwal and Mr. J. Vijetha, Advocates Mr. Rahul Jain, Govt. Pleader for R-1/UOI O R D E R 1. The grievance of the Petitioners in these two writ petitions concerns the actions of the Respondent No. 2 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ) in freezing the bank accounts of the Petitioners pending issuance of a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ). 2. In W.P.(C) 3793/2017 filed by Balaji Enterprises, it is pointed out that on 27th September 2016, the premises of the Petitioner was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner No. 1 was informed by Yes Bank of a letter of the DRI which was received by it on 28th September, 2016 by which Account No. 001687300001016 of Petitioner No.1 stood frozen. The freezing of the bank account has continued since then. Likewise the Bank A/c No. 001687300000672 of the Petitioner No.2, with Yes Bank, South Extension, Part-II Branch, New Delhi and Bank Account No. 061201601001514 of Petitioner No.3 with Corporation Bank, Civil Lines, Moradabad stood frozen. 6. The Petitioners state that pursuant to the summons issued to each of them, they have been appearing before the DRI and providing information and documents. However, till date no SCN has been issued and the accounts remain frozen. 7. Pursuant to the notice issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evident that the money from accounts of petitioner firm have been ultimately routed to Shri Shray Kumar and Shri Pawan Arora. 9. As far as W.P.(C) 3793/2017 is concerned similar explanation is offered in the para-wise reply in para 7 (C) and (D). Significantly, in both the replies in the para-wise replies it is stated in para 7 H that, No proceeding under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 was undertaken as there was no stock of any goods with the Petitioner firms. 10. The Court asked the learned counsel for the Respondents to explain the justification for freezing the Petitioners bank accounts for over one year without any reference to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act') which permits such action. Initially, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 (287) ELT 44 (Kar) where the bank accounts were asked to be defrozen. 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 India) where while ordering the de-freezing of the bank account, the Court required the Petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee. It is accordingly submitted that in this case also, the Petitioners may be asked to furnish some security for de-freezing the bank account. 14. The Court is unable to accept the above submission of the Respondents. Without there being any authority in law to justify the freezing of the bank accounts, requiring the Petitioners to furnish security for de-freezing such bank accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -110001 both of M/s. Balaji Enterprises and Account No. 001687300001016 of the Petitioner No.1 Tatvik Enterprises; Account No. 001687300000672 of the Petitioner No.2 Rising Roots both with Yes Bank, South Extension, Part-II Branch, New Delhi and Account No. 061201601001514 of Petitioner No.3 Global Metallex LLP with Corporation Bank, Civil Lines, Moradabad shall be defreezed forthwith. The DRI is directed to write to the concerned banks immediately to permit the Petitioners to operate the accounts forthwith. If no such instructions are issued within a period of three days from today, acting on the strength of this order, the Managers of the aforesaid banks, shall permit the respective Petitioners to operate their respective accounts. 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
