2025 (7) TMI 1352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....RAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS FOR R4 SHRI.ASHOK SHRI.JAISHANKER V. NAIR, SC, FOR R2 & R3 JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. The present writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed in WP(C) No.19068 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of jewellery manufacturing and selling. In the course of its business, the appellant/petitioner had purchased 10kgs of gold bars from the 5th respondent, a private limited company named M/s.Ashwin Gold Pvt.Ltd which is functioning in accordan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oprietor of an establishment named M/s.Kallarakkal Jewellers, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act. As the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is a scheduled offence in terms of Sections 2(1)(x) and 2(1)(y) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act, for short), an Enforcement Case Information Report was recorded by the 2nd respondent and investigation launched by the Enforcement Directorate. During the course of that investigation, a communication was served on the Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner company, directing him to make a fixed deposit for Rs.2,84,50,000/-, being the amount equivalent to the value of the 10kgs of gold purchased from the 5th r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L Act and thereby making the proceedings initiated without jurisdiction. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the writ petition itself is not maintainable inasmuch as Section 26 of the PML Act provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, instead approached this Court in the writ petition. Even otherwise the writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the fact that Section 42 of the PML Act provides for appeal to the High Court where appeal can be filed by any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal.....