Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 292 (CAL)

GRML EXPORTS LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

1996-07-25

TARUN CHATTERJEE

body1996
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION is to be filed within 3 weeks from date and affidavit-in-reply, if any, is to be filed within 2 weeks thereafter. ( 2 ) LET this writ application be listed for hearing 6 weeks hence. ( 3 ) SINCE I am not prima facie satisfied that any interim order should be granted at this stage, I refuse the prayer for interim order. Reasons are as follows: ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act have now been challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) AT the time of moving this writ application, Mr. Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, restricts his argument only to the question that as the documents which were asked to be supplied by the petitioner by all earlier summons were filed on the basis of such summons, further summons cannot be issued for supply of the same documents. ( 6 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of authorities, disputes the submissions of Mr. Pal and contends that the writ petitioner in his deposition has clearly admitted before the authorities that details would be placed in due course. He has also drawn my attention to the letter written by the writ petitioner himself on 8th July, 1996 in which he has categorically stated that since the office was closed, details, as asked for in the summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 6th July, 1996 could not be collected, and, for that reason, he wanted some time to collect those details and to submit the same before the authorities. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after considering their submissions, I am of the view that no case has been made out by the writ petitioner for granting interim relief to the writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ application. The Customs Authorities are empowered to investigate and in connection with investigation exercise powers conferred under Sections 105, 108, 110, 111 and 113 of the Customs Act. Particularly Section 105 of the Customs Act empowers the Authorities to search and under Section 108 of the Act to issue summons. The Customs Authorities are empowered to investigate and in connection with investigation exercise powers conferred under Sections 105, 108, 110, 111 and 113 of the Customs Act. Particularly Section 105 of the Customs Act empowers the Authorities to search and under Section 108 of the Act to issue summons. Therefore, under the aforesaid provisions of the Act it is open to the Authorities, to ask for further details or to supply documents for the purpose of investigating the offence alleged to have been committed by the writ petitioner. Since the writ petitioner himself has stated that the details should be given in due course, I do not find at this stage that there is any reason to pass an interim order. In my view, when the writ petitioner himself has stated in his deposition a copy of which has been produced before me that he will submit details of those documents in due course and in view of the letter which has been written by the writ petitioner himself in which he has categorically stated that details which were wanted by the summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be supplied as his office was closed at that time, I am not prima facie, satisfied that any case has been made out by the writ petitioner at this stage to obtain an interim order. Accordingly, the prayer for interim order is refused.