Shri Pramod Kumar Singhal vs The Directorate Of Revenue ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3532 Del

Delhi High Court

Shri Pramod Kumar Singhal vs The Directorate Of Revenue ... on 22 April, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva

Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

                          $~50
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          %                                         Date of decision: 22.04.2024
                          +      W.P.(C) 5513/2024 & CM APPL. 22651/2024
                                 SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SINGHAL               ..... Petitioner
                                                  Through:

                                                     versus

                                 THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
                                 THROUGH DIRECTOR & ANR.   ..... Respondents
                                             Through:

                          Advocates who appeared in this case:
                          For the Petitioner:        Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate.
                          For the Respondents:       Mr. Anirudh Deshmukh, Advocate for R-1.
                                                     Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr. Gaurav
                                                     Kumar, Mr. Preetpal Singh and Ms. Neha
                                                     Narang, Advocates for R-2.

                          CORAM:-
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

                                                        JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks a direction to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ["DRI"] to consider the application of the petitioner dated 26.02.2024 seeking release of the seized gold bars/cutting bars.

2. As per the learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is a trader in gold jewellery and had sent gold bars/cutting bars for fabrication of

gold jewellery and when articles were received back, the same were seized by DRI on the ground that consignment was not accompanied with proper invoices and bills.

3. Petitioner disputes that the sale and purchase of the gold articles was illegal and has accordingly moved an application dated 26.02.2024 seeking release of the gold. As per the petitioner, said application is still pending and has not been disposed of.

4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents.

5. With the consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal. Learned counsel for respondent submits that gold was seized because the transactions were not evidenced by proper invoices and bills.

6. By the said petition, petitioner only seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the application dated 26.02.2024 seeking release of gold items.

7. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 1 to dispose of the application dated 26.02.2024 in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today.

8. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits or legality of the transactions or issued any direction to the respondents to decide the application in a particular manner. It would be open to respondent No. 1 to consider the

application in accordance with law without being influenced by anything stated in this order.

9. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 22, 2024 vp