/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
In Naveen Kasera alias Naveen Agarwal v. Union of India Secretary Ministry of Finance W.P.(CRL) 630/2021 dated September 30, 2021] the current writ petition has been filed by Naveen Kasera alias Naveen Agarwal (“the Petitioner”) challenging the detention order bearing F.No.:PD-12001/03/2021–COFEPOSA dated January 15, 2021 wherein the Petitioner was put under preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (“the COFEPOSA Act”).
The ground for preventive detention is alleged to be that the Petitioner was controlling a syndicate which was involved in effecting fraudulent exports and imports in order to evade Customs duty and earn undue export benefits including Integrated Goods and Services Tax (“IGST”) refunds through 33 non-existent and/or dummy firms.
In a report dated March 26, 2021, the advisory board opined that there existed sufficient grounds for the Petitioner’s detention, and it was on the basis of that opinion and other facts, the impugned detention order was confirmed by the Ministry vide its order dated April 08, 2021.
The Petitioner contended that there is no cogent material to show any prejudicial activity before the passing of impugned detention order other than one shipping bill dated December 11, 2018 wherein the Petitioner allegedly has attempted to export goods on-paper without actually exporting anything, with the intent of illegally availing duty drawback. Neither any proceeding nor any Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) has been issued with regards to the shipping bill dated December 11, 2018.
The Petitioner further contended that there lies no connection with company that issued the shipping bill except that he acted as an intermediary, that too only during the course of his ordinary business activities. Also contended that there is an unexplained delay in passing of the detention order as well as the SCN dated January 07, 2021
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noted that there are two issues pertaining to the matter, i.e. if there lies a “live-link” or “casual connection” between the prejudicial activity in which the Petitioner is alleged to have indulged and consequently passing of the detention order and whether the grounds on which the detention order is premised are “stale” or “illusory” or have “no real nexus” with the need for placing the Petitioner under prevention detention.
It was observed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that the last act which the Petitioner undertook and which may amount to prejudicial activity was on December 11, 2018 whereas the detention order was passed more than 2 years later on January 12, 2021. Noted “it is evident that the live-link or causal connection between the Petitioner’s preventive detention, meant to forestall the petitioner from indulging in any prejudicial activity, can surely be said to have snapped.”
Further noted, the ground of detention on the basis of only activity arising from shipping bill dated December 11, 2018 is clearly stale, illusory and lacks real nexus with detention order which was passed more than 2 years later.
Additionally, it was observed that “delay in the passing and execution of a preventive detention order not only defeats the very purpose of such order, but more importantly, creates a doubt as to the necessity of adopting such a harsh measure against an individual, whereby the individual’s liberty is curtailed on suspicion alone.”
(Author can be reached at email@example.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
In Union of India v. M/s Cummins Technologies India Pvt Ltd and Ors etc. [Transfer Petitions(Civil) Nos.1481-1482/2021 dated September 20, 2021] , the current transfer petitions have been filed
In M/S. ASR Hospitals (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [W.P. No. 17415 of 2021 dated September 22, 2021], Andhra Pradesh Medical Services Infrastructure Development Corporation
In M/S. Bright Star Plastic Industries v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax [W.P. (C) No. 15265 of 2021 dated October 04, 2021], M/S. Bright Star Plastic Industries ("the Petitioner") has filed
In M/S. Ghadshyam Enterprises v. Commissioner Central Goods & Services Tax [Service Tax Appeal No. 50783 of 2020 (SM) dated August 18, 2021], M/S. Ghadshyam Enterprises ("the Appellant") filed
In M/s. Fastrack Deal Comm Pvt. Ltd. [ADVANCE RULING NO. GUJ/GAAR/R/58/2020 dated July 30, 2020] M/s. Fastrack Deal Comm Pvt. Ltd. (“the Applicant”) after entering into a sale agreement to sell a fact