TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds summons legality despite objections. Petitioners must appear in Jamnagar for investigation.</h1> <h3>M/s. SILVER STAR SEAFOODS LTD., M/s. INSAF EXPORTS Versus THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER</h3> M/s. SILVER STAR SEAFOODS LTD., M/s. INSAF EXPORTS Versus THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, THE ... Issues:1. Legality of summoning petitioners to Jamnagar for investigation by respondents.Analysis:The petitioners, a Company and a Partnership firm engaged in seafood export, challenged the summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer in Jamnagar for an investigation related to their export activities under the MEIS scheme. The petitioners contended that since DRI has regional offices in Kerala, summoning them to Jamnagar was unnecessary. They also cited medical reasons for being unable to travel to Jamnagar. In response, the DRI stated that the investigation was initiated by the Jamnagar Unit on an All India basis due to suspicions of wrongful benefits availed through mis-description in shipping bills. The DRI justified summoning the petitioners to Jamnagar, emphasizing that the investigating agency's centralized location facilitated a thorough investigation. The DRI relied on a Supreme Court decision to support their choice of venue for the investigation.The court considered the arguments presented and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dukhishyam Benupani's case, emphasizing that the court should not interfere with the functions of statutory authorities conducting investigations within the prescribed legal procedures. It was noted that the investigating agency has the discretion to determine the venue, timing, and manner of interrogation as long as it complies with the law. The court highlighted that preventing a person from being arrested could render the interrogation a mere formality. Citing decisions from various High Courts, including Gujarat and Madras, the court endorsed the principle that the investigating agency's choice of venue should be respected. Consequently, the court directed the petitioners to appear before the authorities in Jamnagar for recording sworn statements, ensuring the process adheres to natural justice principles and the provisions of the law. The court emphasized that the recording of evidence should be voluntary without coercion, addressing the petitioners' concerns. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions, requiring the petitioners to appear before the authorities in Jamnagar as directed.
TaxTMI 