SET JETHANAND TAHILRAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule Nisi under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed inter alia, against the re-seizure of the same goods which were seized earlier under section 110(1) of Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as die "Act") This Rule also directs the respondents to show cause why they should not return those goods to the petitioner.

(2.) As to other orders and notices mentioned in the Rule, Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, does not press them and therefore the scope of this Rule is now limited to the questions to whether the proper officer has any power under section 110(1) of the Act to seize the goods after their restoration to the petitioner and whether these goods are liable to be returned to the petitioner.

(3.) On September 15, 1969 the proper officer seized these goods under Section 110(1) of the Act while they were in possession of the petitioner. No notice under Section 124(a) of the Act was given to the petitioner within six months from the seizure of these goods. The Assistant Collector of Customs thereafter extended the period of the aforesaid notice ex parte which was quashed by this Court in C.R. Nos. 2863 to 2867 (W) of 1970 and the respondents were directed to return these goods to the petitioner.