Though
'goods' defined under section 2(22) of Custom
Act include currency, yet, freezing of bank account cannot amount to
seizure of currency and hence, assessee couldn’t seek de-freezing of bank
account under section 110, if no notice was issued within 6 months of such
freezing.
Facts:
a) The
petitioners were importing high value pesticides/insecticides/ hazardous
products in guise of Sodium Bi-Carbonate;
b) Said
transactions were pending investigation. The Department freezed petitioner's
bank account;
c) The
petitioner argued that since no show-cause notice was issued against it under section
124 even after expiry of 6 months from freezing of account, it was liable to be
de-freezed as per section 110.
The High
Court rejected petitioner’s claim with the following observations:
1) If
notice required under section 110(2) was not served within 6 months or extended
time-limit, goods were liable to be returned;
2) Sections110 and 124 are independent, distinct and exclusive of each other. Even if any
seized goods are returnable in terms of section 110, proceedings for
confiscation of goods under section 124 may still continue;
3) Section
110(3) deals with seizure of documents or things which in opinion of concerned
officer would be relevant to any proceedings under Act;
4) Freezing
of bank account was not seizure of any document or thing useful or relevant to
any proceedings under the Act; rather freezing of account was only with a view
to stop petitioner from withdrawing proceeds of alleged violations under the Act;
5) Though
'goods' as defined under section 2(22) include currency, yet, there is no
precedent to show that freezing of bank account would amount to seizure of
currency. Since freezing of bank account was not seizure of 'goods' as
envisaged under section 110, petitioner was not entitled to de-freezing of bank
account unconditionally;
6) Hence,
the amount deposited in said bank account after date of freezing account was to
be released, subject to furnishing of a bank guarantee in respect of such
amount. - Ravi Crop Science v. Union of India [2014] 41 taxmann.com 69 (Delhi)
No comments:
Post a Comment