CHEMITEX GOA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners seek a declaration that Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, and by way of writs of certiorari and mandamus, or by writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus, or by any other appropriate writ, direction or order, the setting aside of the Notification No. 68/63, dated 4-5-1963 inasmuch as the same is applying the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the forthwith return of the goods and documents seized by respondents no. 2 to 4.

(2.) The facts of the case are as under : Petitioner no. 1 M/s. Chemitex is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing artificial leather cloth and having its factory at Corlim, Goa. On or about 22nd/23rd February, 1980, officers of the respondents carried out simultaneously searches of the petitioner's factory at Banastarim, Goa, office premises at Panjim and office premises at Bombay and seized a large number of documents as well as 283.6 metres of cotton coated fabrics valued Rs. 5,672/- under three special panchanamas. Thereafter, investigations began to be carried out by the respondents and statements of the partners of the aforesaid firm were recorded from time to time. On 4th August, 1980, respondent no. 2 served a notice on the petitioner requiring them to show cause why the six months period for investigation should not be extended. Petitioners, in their reply dated 12th August, 1980, submitted that respondents had more than sufficient time for investigations and whatever documents required therefor had been either seized or made available, and as such, there was no reason for the sought extention. A personal hearing of the petitioners in connection with the said show cause notice was fixed at Bombay on 19th August, but petitioners could not attend the said hearing having sought an adjournment. The sought extention was granted and the seized documents were not returned to the petitioners despite requests made by them on the grounds that they were required for the purpose of carrying on their day to day business and in order to file their Returns of the Income-Tax and to complete the Income-Tax Assessment.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that the Notification No. 68/63, dated 4-5-63 in applying the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act and the action of the respondents in seizing the goods and documents, in extending time under Section 110(2) of the said Act and in not returning the same to them are illegal, without jurisdiction and/or without the authority of law and violative of the principles of natural justice and of the constitutional rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution. Indeed, it is their case that, on one hand the said Notification is ultra vires Section 12 of the Excise Act, 1944 insofar it confers the power under Section 110(3) of the same Act, 1962 and on the other, the provisions of Section 110(3) of the same Act are void and ultra vires Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution inasmuch as they constitute unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry on the trade, and are also arbitrary.