2017 (7) TMI 717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l. 2.The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the summons, dated 10.03.2017 issued by the second respondent, Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. 3. The petitioner's contention is that the impugned summons is bereft of particulars and it does not mention as to what reason, the petitioner has been summoned to appear before the second respondent and it amounts to a harassment and clear case of victimization. To buttress the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the earlier summons dated 20.12.2016, by which, the petitioner, Thiru. K. Elumalai was directed to appear before the second ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... summon and give statement, as it is required for an on going investigation and the preliminary security of the data retrieved from the hard disk recovered during the course of Panchanama from the premises of the firm, in which, the petitioner, Mr.Elumalai, is a partner, reveals that the firm was indulging in gross under-valuation in import of printing machinery and has evaded huge amount of customs duty. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of interim stay should be vacated and the petitioner should be directed to appear before the second respondent.  6. With regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the summons does not specifically state as to for what purpose the petitioner is summoned, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....misuse of advance licence scheme and summons were issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Honourable Supreme Court took note of the decision in the case of Dukhishiyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) Vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria reported in (1998) 1 SCC 52 and held that the learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed the order without properly appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Bajoria (supra). Ultimately, the appeal filed by the Union of India was allowed, leaving it open to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue appropriate summons to the respondent for his appearance at an appropriate place. By applying the law laid dow....