Disposed

Shri Vijay Subbanna Poojary v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2016WP/1499/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that addressing communications to Cooperative Housing Societies to restrict transfer of flats before adjudication of a show cause notice has far-reaching consequences and is not permissible under the Customs Act, 1962, unless the enactment permits it. No attachment was found.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that there is no attachment of immoveable properties and petitioner can deal with them in accordance with law pending adjudication.

Shri Vijay Subbanna Poojary Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

suresh

¶2

54-WPL-978.2016.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION {L} NO.978 OF 2016

¶4

Vijay Subbanna Poojary .... Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Others .... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Anil Balani, Ms Pooja Reddy & Subha Reddy i/by Mr. Sagar Kasar for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Pradeep Jetly with Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

¶8

DATE : JUNE 20, 2016

¶9

P.C:

¶10

We have heard both sides. We have perused all the affidavits on record. In furtherance of our earlier orders, today what we have noted is that Mr. Jetly has been instructed by the concerned officials to inform the Court that the attached motor vehicles would be released to the original owners and in accordance with law. Secondly, he is also instructed to inform that the immoveable properties/Flats, which are more

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

suresh 54-WPL-978.2016.doc

¶13

particularly described at page 130 of the paper-book, are not attached, as complained, but communications are addressed to the Co-operative Housing Societies not to register any transfer in relation to these Flats in the books of the Society.

¶14

Mr. Shah, appearing on behalf of the petitioner,

¶15

complains not about the vehicles and states that their release is taken care of by the earlier direction. He submits that addressing such communications would mean attaching these Flats and depriving the petitioner of his property rights, without any adjudication of the show cause notice and without any proof of the allegations in the show cause notice forthcoming. It is only after an adjudication order and which also can be challenged in accordance with law can all such steps and if at all permissible in law be taken.

¶16

We do not determine any larger controversy, but from the scheme of the Customs Act, 1962 we find that presently when the show cause notice is yet to be adjudicated

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

suresh 54-WPL-978.2016.doc

¶19

and there are mere allegations against the petitioner, can the Revenue address such communications, as are brought to our notice by Mr. Jetly. These communications are not innocuous for they have far reaching consequences in law. The Revenue should refrain from addressing such communications unless the scheme of the enactment in question permits them to do so. Therefore, we clarify that there is no attachment of the immoveable properties, more particularly listed on page 130 of the paperbook and the petitioner can proceed to deal with them in accordance with law. However, we at the same time clarify that the Revenue's rights and contentions, particularly regarding recovery of any sums towards taxes, if any, and other legal duties shall not be affected by these directions. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in these terms.

¶20

(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶21

Page 3 of 3

Shri Vijay Subbanna Poojary v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vijay Subbanna Poojary v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tidal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority and 2 Ors.

M/S. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and 2 Ors.

Anupam Amrito Biswas, through Father Amrito Biswas Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Director of Medical and Technical Education, Mumbai and Ors.

The Commissioner of Customs (Csi Airport Ii) Vs Deepti Jewellers

The Commissioner of Central Excise Large Tax Payer Unit(Ltu) Vs M/S Tata Motors Ltd.

M/S. Techno Forge Ltd. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.