TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Manager of ICICI Bank Limited has been directed not to allow any withdrawal from Account No. 019005500238 in the name of petitioner No. 1. It has also been stated in the aforesaid order petition that the said action taken by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence may be treated as action under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 19621 and information/documents called for, and required to be submitted under Section 108 of the Act may be provided to the office by 18 June 2014. Further relief that has been sought in this petition is that the respondents may forthwith de-freeze the current account of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to operate it. It is stated that summons dated 6 June 2014 was issued to the petitioner under Section 108....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is without jurisdiction as Section 110 of the Act does not authorise the officer to put on hold withdrawal from the account of petitioners. It is further submitted that even if it is assumed that the officer had the jurisdiction to issue such an order under Section 110 of the Act, the order cannot last for a period of more than six months as contemplated under Section 110 (2) of the Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court a Division Bench Judgement of Allahabad High Court rendered in Raghuram Grah Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Service Tax, reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 50; a Division Bench Judge of Bombay High Court rendered in Veritas Exports Vs. Union of India reported i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuments in respect of the enquires being conducted by the Senior Intelligence Officer in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The petitioners have stated that their representatives had appeared on 26 June 2014 and had also submitted the required documents, though with respect to the summons dated 26 June 2014 a request had been made to fix another date because of Ramzan. The dispute in this Writ Petition is regarding the communication dated 5 June 2014 issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer to the ICICI Bank Limited purportedly under Section 110 of the Act. The letter directs the Manager of the ICICI Bank Ltd. Allahabad to put on hold withdrawal from account of the petitioners because an investigation was being carried out by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und when the same is examined in light of the scheme of the Act. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the provision is part and parcel of a statute which deals with import and export of goods. In other words, permitting such transactions of goods in accordance with law. The term `currency' is used in the definition of the term `goods' in the context of either importing the currency or exporting the currency through legal channels or illegally. In violation of the requisite law in relation to such transactions of currencies, the authority would be empowered to take appropriate action under the Act. In the present case, it is not the case of respondent authorities that the petitioner is either dealing in currency or is charged with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 110 of the Act. As noted above the Senior Intelligence Officer does not have such a power. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that even if the account is permitted to be operated by the petitioners, a direction should be issued to provide the security for the amount in view of the judgements relied upon cannot also be accepted in view of the provisions of Section 110 A of the Act. Section 110 A of the Act provides that any goods, documents or things seized under Section 110 may pending order of the Adjudicating Authority be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the Adjudicating Authority may require. Thus the precondition stipulated under S....