Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in law when it did not disclose the inquiry or investigation, the case pending against the petitioner, or the basis for requiring his appearance.
Analysis: The summons was found to be bereft of necessary and material particulars. It did not specify the inquiry or investigation for which the petitioner was called, nor did it indicate any pending case or the reason for summoning him. A summons under the statutory power must disclose the relevant basis for calling a person and cannot be issued in a manner that is arbitrary or unsupported by particulars.
Conclusion: The summons dated 19.03.2016 was held to be ex facie unsustainable and was set aside and quashed. The respondents were left free to issue a fresh summons in accordance with law, and any coercive action was directed to follow only after due compliance with statutory requirements and seven days' notice.
Final Conclusion: The impugned summons was invalid for want of particulars, and the petitioner obtained quashing relief, with liberty reserved to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 must disclose the material basis for compelling attendance, and a summons that omits the inquiry, pending case, and reasons for appearance is liable to be quashed as unsustainable.