TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Malhotra & Associates, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mrs. Manisha Jagtap, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 4: Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Umesh Gupta, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 5/State: Mr. Y.Y. Dabake, APP. ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has put forth Prayer Clauses (a) to (d), below Paragraph No. 47, which read as under:- "(a) Direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue the necessary requisition to the Respondent No. 4, seeking the complete details of the Customs Duty deposited by this Petitioner amounting to Rs.145.35 Crores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the effect, operation, execution and/or implementation of the impugned PAO dated 27.03.2025 illegally issued by the Respondent No. 2 with manifest improper exercise of powers and abuse of powers vested in him under the provisions of PMLA, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice; (d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay further proceedings before the Respondent No. 3, arising out of the impugned PAO dated 27.03.2025, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;" 3. Having considered the submissions of the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the Petitioner. In absence of these documents it is rendered defense-less. It cannot retrieve thousands of figures running into crores of rupees, with precision, in order to prepare it's reply in defence against the charge leveled upon it. It is humanly impossible for the Company to carry out such an exercise in the absence of the documents, since the documents with the Company have been destroyed after the specific preservation period. 6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4, The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Zone-II, submits that all the documents which the Petitioner wants under a direction of this Court, are available with the Authorities. The Authorities are not parting with these documents, since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of Respondent No. 4 that they cannot part with these documents, without the consent of the said 5 companies. However, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that all these documents were handled by the Petitioner and it was through the Petitioner/Company that these documents were processed and the bill of entries were filed. Had the Petitioner maintained these documents beyond the period of preservation, the Petitioner would not have been required to approach Respondent No. 4. 10. The learned Advocate representing Respondent No. 2/Directorate of Enforcement and the adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, Respondent No. 3, submits that the Petitioner needs to tender a specific reply along with documentary evidence to make good it's case. ....