TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with an ongoing customs investigation and quash successive summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the petitioner had already been arrested and was therefore to be treated as an accused.
Analysis: Interference with an ongoing investigation is warranted only in grave and exceptional circumstances, or where it is manifest that no offence has been committed. The material placed did not satisfy that threshold. Arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not by itself render the person an accused; that expression ordinarily applies where cognizance has been taken or a chargesheet has been filed, neither of which had occurred. The power of arrest is available to aid investigation, and the statutory power to summon persons for participation in inquiry remains available during a pending investigation. The preventive detention order under COFEPOSA was also not a basis to conclude that the customs investigation had concluded or that the summons were without authority.
Conclusion: The challenge to the investigation and summons was rejected, and the petitioner was not entitled to quashing of the ongoing proceedings.
TaxTMI 
