Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 379 (GUJ)

Advantage Health Care Solutions v. Union of India

2025-04-04

BHARGAV D.KARIA, D.N.RAY

body2025
ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi for learned advocate Mr. Aayog Doshi for the petitioners and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Ankit Shah for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 2. This Court passed the following order on22.06.2022: “1. The petitioners have approached this Court questioning the action on the part of the respondent no.2, - Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in initiating an inquiry as to whether the subject Service Exports from India Scrips have been properly issued to the petitioner no.1 by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) – respondent no.3. The petitioners challenge the very jurisdiction of the respondent no.2 on the ground that such scrips have been issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act) read with Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 and that the respondent no.2 is not an authority under the FTDR Act. Besides that, the Director General or the licensing authority has the powers to take necessary actions in the event of any irregularity or illegality. The summons issued on 24.05.2022 is also seriously questioned on the ground that the petitioners have been coerced by informing them that it falls under the head of ‘other business services’and not under the ‘management consultant services’ for any mis-declaration or wrongful availment of the scrips. 2. We heard learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner. 3. Issue urgent Notice, returnable on 29.06.2022. Direct service qua respondent no.2 is permitted. 4. According to the learned senior advocate, pursuant to the summons, all necessary documents have been furnished to the authority and the petitioners all along have shown the readiness and have cooperated. 5. Let there be no coercive actions till further orders. The petitioners, in wake of this petition, shall be entitled to seek adjournment, which shall be considered by the authority concerned.” 3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved by the initiation of the investigation proceedings by the respondent-DRI Officers. He referred to the contents of para 4.10 of the petition to demonstrate as to how the respondent No.2 has treated the petitioner. It was further submitted that the respondent-authorities do not have any jurisdiction to process the classification of the services provided which is under domain of the Director General of Foreign Trade. 4. He referred to the contents of para 4.10 of the petition to demonstrate as to how the respondent No.2 has treated the petitioner. It was further submitted that the respondent-authorities do not have any jurisdiction to process the classification of the services provided which is under domain of the Director General of Foreign Trade. 4. It was therefore submitted that the initiation of the investigation proceedings by the respondent-DRI is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondent submitted that respondent-DRI has only initiated the investigation and has not reached upon any conclusion and after considering the documents submitted by the petitioner, the DRI-respondent No.2 is required to take initiation of any action against the petitioner. It was therefore, submitted that no interference be made by this Court at the stage of investigation being conducted by respondent No.2. 6. We have considered rival submissions made by both the learned advocates. It appears that it would be germane to refer to the averments made in para 4.10 of the petition which reads as under: “4.10 As directed in the summons dated 24.05.2022, the petitioner No.2 reached the office of Respondent no.2 at 11 AM on 25.5.2022. However, he was inordinately made to wait over there by officers of Respondent no.2, and his statement was concluded as late as at 7 PM. During the course of his investigation, while in the custody of Respondent no.2, Petitioner no.2 was given two papers of classification, and was informed that the service provided by the Petitioner no.2 falls under CPC heading 87909 under the head of 'Other Business Services', and not under ‘Management Consulting Services’. The Petitioner no.2 was coerced by the officers of Respondent no.2 and threatened with arrest and he was repeatedly told that the Petitioner no.1 is guilty of wrongfully availing the scrips by misdeclaring the service, though the concerned department (i.e. Respondent no.2) which has issued the SEIS scrips has not cancelled these scrips till date hence the Respondent no. 2 has no jurisdiction whatsoever to initiate an inquiry in this regard. 2 has no jurisdiction whatsoever to initiate an inquiry in this regard. Petitioner no.2, under the threat of arrest, was involuntarily made to sign a statement containing incriminating contents wherein virtually the Petitioner no.2 was made to concede that the service exported by Petitioner no.1 is that of data processing and falls under CPC subclass 87909 being ‘Other Business Services’. Till date a copy of this statement is not given to Petitioner no.2.” 7. After considering the aforesaid averments, this Court passed the order restraining the respondent No.2 from taking any coercive action. 8. We agree with learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondent. The petitioner should not be aggrieved at the stage of investigation by respondent No.2. However, at the same time, respondent No.2 is also restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner during the course of investigation. 9. Therefore, following order is passed in the interest of justice while disposing of this petition: Respondent No.2 shall continue investigation initiated pursuant to the summons issued on 16.01.2020 onwards and the petitioner shall continue to cooperate in investigation to be conducted by respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 shall not take any coercive action during the course of the investigation as directed by this Court vide order dated 22.06.2022, more particularly, in view of the averments made by the petitioner in para 4.10 quoted here-in-above. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of at this stage. Notice is discharged.