JUDGMENT 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the following communication, a copy of which is at Exhibit-A, page 11 of the petition paper book, sent by his banker; viz. : To, Mr.Rajuram Purohit, 249, Kothari Heights, Flat No.602, 6 th Floor, Dr.D.B.Marg, Mumbai Central, Mumbai­400008. Dear Sir, Sub. : Summons from DRIinstructions for not allowing debits from the account's in the name of Rajuram Purohit. Ref. : F.No.DRI/MUZ/C/INT1902017, Dated 18.01.2018. With reference to the above, we wish to inform you that, today officials from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence approached us and issued summons and directed us that "provide to this office with the details of all the accounts in the name of Shri Rajuram Purohit and his relatives. The debits from all the said accounts may be stopped immediately till further notice from our office, and informed that this may be treated as summons issued under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962." So, accordingly we are stopping all debits in the annexed List of accounts of you and your relatives immediately and it is informed to you. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Branch Manager" The petitioner claims to be residing in India and a citizen of India. The Union of India through the Deputy Directorate of Revenue Intelligence exercising powers and jurisdiction under Customs Act, 1962 and its allied Acts/Rules, has proceeded to issue this communication. The petitioner says that for the past more than fifteen years he is in the business of trading and distribution of Air Conditioners, Television Sets and other electronic items. The petitioner sets out as to how a criminal writ petition had to be filed, for, he apprehended threat to his personal liberty. The petitioner states that no show cause notice as yet has been issued. There is no crystalization of the amount due and payable to the Government. This attachment or freezing of the bank account by taking recourse to Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962, pre-supposes that there is a sum due to the Government. In other words, according to Mr.Shah appearing for the petitioner, it should be an admitted liability or the amount must be admitted to be due and payable. Mr.Shah would submit that there is no such position emerging from the records. 2. In other words, according to Mr.Shah appearing for the petitioner, it should be an admitted liability or the amount must be admitted to be due and payable. Mr.Shah would submit that there is no such position emerging from the records. 2. Mr.Jetly appearing for the respondents, on notice, files an affidavit today in which it is alleged that the petitioner together with some other parties, was responsible for smuggling 57 kgs of gold bars valued at Rs. 16.96 crores. They were concealed in 57 air conditioners. In fact, great effort had to be made to detect and then seize them. It is in these circumstances and alleging that there is a syndicate indulging in such activities and on several occasions in the past they had smuggled gold, that the authority was authorized to write to the bank and proceed as above. 3. Thus, money generated by way of smuggling of gold bars was found to be pumped into the banking channel through cheque discounting. It is to discard that practice, that present step has been taken. Mr.Jetly would invite our attention to Sections 110, 120 of Customs Act, 1962 to submit that there is a power to seize the goods, documents and things which include, as in the instant case, the gold bars, and equally there is power to proceed against the movable property which means monies lying in the deposit with the bank. Then our attention is invited to Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 to submit that what is being confiscated are the sale proceeds of the smuggled goods. 4. For these reasons he would submit that communication to the bank is protected by law. 5. We have noticed in this case that mere allegations have resulted in a drastic action. There are allegations against the petitioner of having smuggled gold bars into India. It is alleged that by ostensibly carrying on air-conditioners'' and television sets'' trading activity, the petitioner together with Amrut Purohit is regularly smuggling the good bars by concealing them in air-conditioners. If it is a serious allegation and made on oath before us, then, least we expected that by now a show cause notice to be issued, the petitioner''s reply called for, an opportunity of personal hearing and an order of adjudication. Leave alone any adjudication order till date, no show cause notice is also issued to the petitioner. If it is a serious allegation and made on oath before us, then, least we expected that by now a show cause notice to be issued, the petitioner''s reply called for, an opportunity of personal hearing and an order of adjudication. Leave alone any adjudication order till date, no show cause notice is also issued to the petitioner. The Revenue prays for time to issue such a notice. We do not see how in these circumstances the Revenue justifies this act and prayed that bank account may be continued under attachment and then within a time frame show cause notice will be issued. We do not see how we can freeze a bank account or not allow the petitioner to deal with it until the show cause notice is issued and final orders are passed thereon. That would mean we secure for the Revenue, the amount due and payable which is yet to be adjudicated upon by Revenue. In these circumstances and going by factual allegations, that we do not think that the impugned communication can be sustained. 6. We accordingly quash and set the impugned communication of bank. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. We, however, clarify that our order does not mean that Revenue cannot proceed to recover the amount from the petitioner as also attach the bank account in future. All such actions can be taken strictly in accordance with law.