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>Petition Dismissed: Court Upholds DRI Chennai Summons on Gold Imports, Declines to Shift Investigation Location.</h1> <h3>Nuttish Exim India Pvt Ltd Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, The Central Board of Interest Taxes and Customs, Senior Intelligence Officer, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad.</h3> Nuttish Exim India Pvt Ltd Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, The Central Board of Interest Taxes and ... Issues Involved: The issues involve the jurisdiction of investigation between the Customs Department in Hyderabad and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in Chennai regarding the import of gold and silver findings by a private limited company based in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.Judgment Summary:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of InvestigationThe petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the summons issued by the DRI in Chennai regarding the import of gold findings, arguing that the investigation should be undertaken by the Customs Department in Hyderabad where the earlier proceedings had taken place. The petitioner's counsel relied on a previous judgment to support the request for investigation in Hyderabad. The senior standing counsel for the first and second respondents highlighted that the investigation by customs authorities is limited to tariff value, while the DRI's investigation has a wider scope. The junior standing counsel for the third respondent emphasized that the petitioner does not have the authority to choose the investigating officer or the location of the investigation, pointing out the petitioner's location in Uttar Pradesh. The court held that interference with summons and proceedings is inappropriate unless in extraordinary situations or lack of jurisdiction, and declined to interfere with the DRI's summons, noting the differences in the current case compared to the previous judgment.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the summons dated 09.02.2024 and the proceedings, stating that it is not advisable to second guess the purpose of the investigation at this preliminary stage. The court did not find grounds to interfere with the summons and closed the related application without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
