Disposed

Silver Star Seafoods Ltd., v. the Senior Intelligence Officer

Kerala HC17 Oct 2019WP(C)/4649/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed two writ petitions challenging summons from DRI, Jamnagar, requiring petitioners to appear in Gujarat. Upholding statutory investigation authority, court directed appearances at Jamnagar ensuring voluntariness.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to appear before DRI authorities in Jamnagar to record sworn statements on mutually convenient dates with notice.

Silver Star Seafoods Ltd., Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/25TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

W.P(C).No.4649 OF 2019(E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S.SILVER STAR SEAFOODS LTD., XI/64, ANWAR PALACE, CHANDIROOR P.O., ALLEPPEY-6888547, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. P.P. MAKKAR. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.M.BALAGOPAL SMT.R.DEVIKA SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SMT. ARYA ANIL NILOOFAR O NIZAM GOKULRAJ L

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, REGIONAL UNIT, JAMNAGAR, 45, JAMPURI ESTATE, OPP. DEEP BHAWAN, BEDI BUNDER ROAD, JAMNAGAR-361008.

¶10

R1 BY SRI.S.MANU, CGC, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, KERALA REGIONAL UNIT

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2019 ALONG WITH WP(C).23453/2019(F), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶13

PRESENT

¶14

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶15

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/25TH ASWINA, 1941

¶16

W.P(C).No.23453 OF 2019(F)

¶17

PETITIONER:

¶18

M/S.INSAF EXPORTS 4-15, PULIMUT ROAD, NEAR H.E.D OFFICE, BEYPORE P.O., CALICUT, KERALA-673 015 REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.P.UMMER KOYA.

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.M.BALAGOPAL SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT.R.DEVIKA (ALAPPUZHA) SRI.R.SREEJITH

¶20

RESPONDENTS:

¶21

1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, REGIONAL UNIT, JAMNAGAR, 45, JAMPURI ESTATE, OPP. DEEP BHAWAN, BEDI BUNDER ROAD, JAMNAGAR-361 008.

¶22

2 THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, REGIONAL UNIT, JAMNAGAR, 45, JAMPURI ESTATE, OPP. DEEP BHAWAN, BEDI BUNDER ROAD, JAMNAGAR-361008.

¶23

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN ZONAL UNIT, BUILDING NO.32/641 A-E, VYLOPILLY ROAD, PALLINADA, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.

¶24

4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, 16/1043-A, THYAG, FRANCE ROAD, CHALLAPURAM, CALICUT-673 002.

¶25

R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU, SC, DRI

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2019 ALONG WITH WP(C).4649/2019(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

W.P.(C).No.4649/2019

¶28

& : 3 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

[W.P(C).NO.4649/2019 & W.P(C).NO.23453/2019]

¶31

In both these writ petitions, since a common issue arises with regard to the legality of the action of the respondents in summoning the petitioners to Jamnagar in connection with an enquiry stated to have been undertaken by the respondents in relation to the export activities of the petitioners, the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

¶32

The petitioners are a Company and a Partnership firm respectively, engaged in the business of export of seafood. It would appear that they had exported seafood under an Expert Promotion Scheme known as “Merchandise Exports from India Scheme” [MEIS] and the exports were effected through the Calicut and Cochin Airports. The respondents initiated an investigation into the transactions effected by the petitioners, and in that connection, issued summons to the petitioners, asking them to be present before

¶33

W.P.(C).No.23453/2019

¶34

W.P.(C).No.4649/2019

¶35

& : 4 :

¶36

the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI], Regional Unit, Jamnagar. In the writ petitions, the petitioners impugn the notices and summons issued to them by the 2^nd respondent in W.P.(C).No.23453/2019 inter alia on the contention that since the DRI has Regional Offices even in Cochin, Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram within the State of Kerala, there was no necessity for insisting on an appearance of the petitioners before the Regional Director in Jamnagar, as the evidence required to be taken from the petitioners can be taken through the authorised Officers in the Regional Units in Kerala. The petitioners have also produced medical certificates to suggest that they are not in a position to undertake the journey to Jamnagar, for the purposes of investigation.

¶37

Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the investigation, that was launched on an All India basis against many exporters like the petitioners, was at the instance of the Jamnagar Unit of the DRI. The said Unit has apparently undertaken a thorough research and data study for the purposes of investigation into wrongful availment of MEIS benefits through a mis-description in the shipping bills. It is stated that

¶38

W.P.(C).No.4649/2019

¶39

W.P.(C).No.23453/2019

¶40

& : 5 :

¶41

although the DRI has an All India jurisdiction, the particular investigation was taken up by the Jamnagar Unit for the whole of India, and the investigating agency is functioning at the centralised location. It is therefore that the respondents insisted on the petitioners appearance in Jamnagar, where the investigation was initiated, since the Officers of the said Unit are more familiar with the background of the offence being investigated. The respondents would also rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria - [AIR 1998 SC 696] to justify the summons issued to the petitioners and to point out that this Court should not interfere with the choice of venue of the investigating agency.

¶42

I have heard Sri.Anil D. Nair, the learned counsel fro the petitioners in both these writ petitions as also Sri.Manu.S., the learned Standing Counsel for the DRI.

¶43

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find from a perusal of a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dukhishyam

¶44

W.P.(C).No.4649/2019

¶45

& : 6 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019

¶46

Benupani's case [supra], that there is a mandate by the Supreme Court against interfering with the functions of the statutory authorities when they function in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It has been held that it is not the function of the Court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law, and that it must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences. A blanket order insulating a person from arrest would made his interrogation a mere ritual. The said view of the Supreme Court has been endorsed in subsequent decisions of various High Courts including the High Court of Gujarat in the decision reported in Rajnishkumar Tuli Proprietor and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another – MANU/GJ/7361/2007 as also a recent decision of the Single Judge of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.30518/2018 and connected cases. In the last mentioned case, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court found force in the submission of the DRI that a team of Officers had been entrusted with the study required to understand and assess a group of assessees or a specific issue and in such cases the enquiry conducted by the said Officers should not

¶47

W.P.(C).No.4649/2019

¶48

& : 7 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019

¶49

be interfered with. The writ petitions were therefore disposed, directing the petitioners therein to appear before the authorities in Jamnagar for recording of sworn statements on a date mutually convenient to the petitioners as well as the officials to be fixed by the respondent by issue of a notice. Taking cue from the above decision, and finding the situation in these writ petitions to be similar, I dispose these writ petitions, by directing that the petitioners shall appear before the authorities in Jamnagar, for recording of their sworn statement on a date mutually convenient to the petitioners as well as the respondents, to be fixed by the respondents by issuance of a notice in line with the directions in this judgment. Taking note of the apprehension voiced on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel Sri.Anil D. Nair, I make it clear that the process of recording the sworn statement shall be in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act. The recording of evidence shall be entirely voluntarily and without any coercion as apprehended by the petitioners. With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed.

¶50

Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶51

prp/17/10/19

¶52

W.P.(C).No.4649/2019 & : 8 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019

¶53

¶54

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.7.2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.9.2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.11.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 17.12.2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.1.2019

¶56

W.P.(C).No.4649/2019 & : 9 : W.P.(C).No.23453/2019

¶57

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.F NO.208/122/89-C.X6 DATED 13.10.1989

¶58

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION F.NO.207/07/2014-CX-6, DATED 20.1.2015.

¶59

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS IN THE PROFORMA SOUGHT.

¶60

RESPONDENTS NIL. EXHIBITS:

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶63

APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.23453/2019

¶64

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.7.2018.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COVERING LETTER SENT ON 31.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 (A)	TRUE COPY OF COURIER RECEIPT DATED 31.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.1.2019.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COVERING LETTER SENT ON 13.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 (A)	TRUE COPY OF COURIER RECEIPT DATED 13.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 21.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 13.3.2019.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 6.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 12.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 25.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.F.NO.208/122/89-C.X6 DATED 13.10.1989.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF INSTRUCTION F.NO.207/07/2014-CX-6, DATED 20.1.2015.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2016 IN WPC NO.39791 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2019 IN WPC NO.4649 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE : NEW DELHI.

¶66

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 25.09.2019. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 04.12.2017. EXHIBIT P18 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.03.2018. EXHIBIT P19 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17.05.2018. EXHIBIT P20 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.05.2018.

¶67

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY//

¶68

P.S. TO JUDGE

Silver Star Seafoods Ltd., v. the Senior Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Silver Star Seafoods Ltd., v. the Senior Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Dlf Southern Towns Private Limited Vs the State Tax Officer(Investigation Branch)

Dlf Home Developers Limited Vs the State Tax Officer(Investigation Branch)

M/S.Dlf Southern Town Private Limited NO.10/77, Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Dlf Projects Ltd., Vs State Tax Officer (Investigation Branch)

Gopalan Nair M.N. Vs District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Skymark Builders Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Audit)