SURINDER KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a search conducted at the residential premises of the petitioner by the authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (for short, "the FERA") on 15th Aug., 1997, cash amounting to Rs. 1,18,00,000 was seized. Thereafter proceedings under the FERA were initiated against Amrik Singh, petitioner. The proceedings are continuing Shri Amrik Singh as well as his wife, Smt. Surinder Kaur, have challenged the action of the respondents by way of the present petitions.

(2.) RULE D.B. was issued vide order dt. 19th Jan., 2000. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have moved the present applications praying that the seized amount be released to them subject to the petitioners furnishing bank guarantee(s) for refund of the amount. The applications have been mainly contested on behalf of the IT Department. So far as learned counsel appearing for the Director of Enforcement is concerned, his main concern has been that in the event of order of confiscation being passed in the adjudication proceedings against the petitioner, Amrik Singh, the case property which happens to be the said amount of cash should be available to the Department. Learned counsel argued that if the amount is ordered to be released to the petitioner at this stage, the money may not be available to the Department and the entire proceedings will get frustrated. So far as this objection on the part of the FERA authorities is concerned, the petitioners have agreed to furnish bank guarantees to the satisfaction of the Director of Enforcement and, therefore, such fears of the Department can be fully taken care of.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has also drawn our attention to the fact that as of today there is no demand existing against the petitioners so far as the IT Department is concerned in respect to the money in question. As a matter of fact the assessment for the asst. year 1998 -99 is admittedly still pending. Learned counsel for the Revenue was unable to dispute the fact that as of today no demand is pending with respect to this amount. About the applicability of S. 132A, learned counsel submits that the statements made in the counter -affidavit filed by the IT Department are being read out of context. So far as the question of return of the authorisation by the FERA authorities is concerned, it is submitted that whether they return it or not, the fact remains that the authorisation has been issued by the IT Department and it is still in force.