TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending recovery of Government dues from M/s. Om Traders, M/s. Tropical Exotics and M/s. Prime Agricom under sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of Section 142(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs (Attachment of Properties of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995. Writ Petition No. 1394 of 2002 is filed by M/s. Premium Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Vinita Lakhotia. Writ Petition No. 1395 of 2002 is filed by Vinita Lakhotia in her individual capacity. 3.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of the information CIU/ACC detected a duty drawback fraud to the tune of Rs. 50.14 crores committed by one Nawal Kishore Bangad through three firms viz. M/s. Om Traders, M/s. Prime Agricom and M/s. Trop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Department. He also admitted that Vinita Lakhotia utilised this money to purchase two flats at Lloyds Gardens, Prabhadevi, Mumbai in her name and in the name of her company M/s. Premium Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. She also paid Rs. 90.93 lacs towards the purchase price of office premises at 125 Free Press House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 out of the fraudulent drawback money given by him to her. He showed his willingness to transfer the said amount to Customs and to write a letter to Vinita Lakhotia to transfer the said money to the Customs Department. 4.In view of the above statement made by Nawal Kishore Bangad, the bank accounts of Vinita Lakhotia and her firms/companies were verified to check transactions with firms of Nawal Kisho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Bangad stating that he has given me Rs. 4.5 crores and asking me to transfer the entire amount to the Customs department". She further agreed to surrender the two flats and requested the Customs Department to take charge of the properties with all rights towards the settlement of drawback amount repayable to the department by Nawal Kishore Bangad. During personal hearing given to him on 10-12-1997 Nawal Kishore Bangad confirmed the correctness of demand against M/s. Om Traders and M/s. Prime Agricom. He requested that opportunity may be given to his family members especially to Vinita Lakhotia to surrender the properties, which were purchased in her name from the drawback money received by him fraudulently. Vinita Lakhotia vide her lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India was returned on 23-12-1999 on the ground that the issue involved therein was regarding attachment of movable and immovable properties and the said orders are not of the nature referred to in the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 129A of the Customs Act and thus the revision was dismissed as not maintainable. 6.M/s. Premium Intertrade Pvt Ltd. and Vinita Lakhotia then filed Writ Petition No. 671 of 2001 which was disposed by the Division Bench vide order dated 10-4-2001. The court prima facie observed that the petitioners are not defaulters of any tax dues and the power of the respondents to attach properties would follow only upon a finding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Mr. Mehta learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that the present proceedings are barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. He submitted that while issuing the show cause notices reliance was placed merely upon the letter dated 10-12-1997 purportedly written by Vinita Lakhotia to the department. The said letter has been dealt with by this court in its order dated 10-4-2001 and this court found it insufficient for directing attachment of the properties of the petitioners. He submitted that fresh notices issued to the petitioners as per the order of this court are identical. There is nothing new in the fresh notice and reliance is placed on the same letter dated 10-12-1997. Therefore, according to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the reply fresh orders will be passed in accordance with law. Mr. Sethna submitted that the question of proceedings being barred by constructive res judicata does not arise as the order passed by this court specifically permitted the department to issue fresh show cause notice and accordingly show cause notice has been issued. He submitted that there is ample material to show that Vinita Lakhotia and her firms/companies received money from Nawal Kishore Bangad which was fraudulently obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated export orders. He submitted that in fact Vinita Lakhotia had agreed to surrender two flats towards the dues of Nawal Kishore Bangad. 10.We have given our anxious thought to the submissions of the learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
