TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatute has provided a definite time line beyond which the attachment becomes bad in law. The impugned communication dated 19th April, 2018 is hereby set aside and quashed - Respondents are directed to allow petitioner to operate its bank account with IndusInd Bank - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - WRIT PETITION NO.2677 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2020 - UJJAL BHUYAN ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. Mr. Brijesh Pathak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3. P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Jetly, learned senior counsel alongwith Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore should be interfered with, Mr.Jetly submits that at the relevant point of time such attachment was considered necessary and therefore the bank account was attached. 5. We have considered the submissions made and perused the materials on record. 6. Though in the letter dated 19th April, 2018, it was mentioned that the information was sought for under Section 108 of the Customs Act, a perusal of the said provision would show that it does not provide for attachment of any bank account. On the other hand, we find that Section 110 of the Customs Act deals with seizure of goods, documents and things. Sub-section (5) was inserted in the said provision by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 with effect from 1st August, 2019. Sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and not retrospective operation. Infact, the concerned Finance Act makes it explicit by making the provision effective from a prospective date i.e. from 1st August, 2019. 30. Letter from the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs to the Branch Manager of IDFC Bank was issued on 1st March, 2019 for freezing of the bank account of the petitioner. This was prior to insertion of sub-section (5) in Section 110 with effect from 1st August, 2019. Therefore, it is quite clear that this provision could not have been invoked for freezing the bank account of the petitioner. 31. Even otherwise, we find that the above provision can only be invoked in the manner provided therein which can be culled out as under :- (i) The orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a bank account is a must before such an account can be attached. In the absence of such an order in writing respondents could not have provisionally attached the bank account of the petitioner and continued with such attachment even beyond the permissible extended period. 34. Learned counsel for the respondents could not show any other provision in the Customs Act which empowers or authorizes the customs department to freeze the bank account of a person other than sub-section (5) of Section 110. Such attachment of bank account of the petitioner on 1st March, 2019 and its continuation thereafter being in breach of Section 110(5) is therefore, without any authority of law. 8. Following the above, we do not find any good reason to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
