BharatTaxGST

Shri Shantesh Gureddi vs. Assistant Director

Original PDF →
WP/4000/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01008562202605 March 2026Bench: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM7 pages
For Petitioner: SRI A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI B.G. CHIDANANDA URS, ADVFor Respondent: SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-3

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13643 WP No. 4000 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4000 OF 2026 (GM-FE) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI SHANTESH GUREDDI (S/O SHIVASHANKAR MALLAPPA GUREDDI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS) #516/4, 10TH CROSS, RAJ MAHAL VILAS EXTENSION, SADASHIV NAGAR BANGALORE NORTH, SADASHIV NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 080. 2. SMT. JYOTHI SHANTESH GUREDDI (W/O SHRI SHANTESH GUREDDI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS) #516/4, 10TH CROSS, RAJ MAHAL VILAS EXTENSION, SADASHIV NAGAR BANGALORE NORTH, SADASHIV NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 080. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI B.G. CHIDANANDA URS, ADV.) AND: 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR 3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK, BMTC SHANTINAGAR, TTMC KH ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. THE COMPETENT AUTOTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS-1) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13643 WP No. 4000 of 2026 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS-1), 3 FLOOR NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, GST ROAD MEERAMBAKKAM, CHENNAL - 600 016. 3. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT PRAVARTAN BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR DR.APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD NEW DELHI - 110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-QUASH THE

ORDER PASSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT IN ORDER NO.01/2026 DATED 07.01.2026 UNDER SECTION 37A(4) OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999 WHICH IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE -A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari, or such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and quash the Order passed by Second Respondent in Order No.01/2026 dated 07.01.2026 under Section 37A(4) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 which is herewith enclosed as Annexure "A", HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13643 (b) Issue a writ of Certiorari, or such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and quash the Seizure Order passed by First Respondent in Order No.01/2025 dated 20.08.2025 under Section 37A(1) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 which is herewith enclosed as Annexure "D" (c) Issue a writ of Mandamus, or such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to permit the Petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.61,50,00,000/- and to release the properties seized vide Seizure Order passed by First Respondent in Order No.01/2025 dated 20.08.2025 and confirmed by the Second Respondent in Order No.01/2026 dated 07.01.2026 under Section 37A(4) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (d) pass such other order, direction or writ as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of 2. The petitioners, who are husband and wife and residents of India, are shareholders in M/s. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Private Limited. They are before this Court being aggrieved by the seizure order passed by the respondent-authority and the subsequent confirmation of the said seizure by the competent authority. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13643

3.

The grievance of the petitioners is directed against the action of the respondent-authority in seizing nine immovable properties belonging to them. According to the petitioners, the said properties could not have been subjected to seizure having regard to the scheme of Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short, “the Act”).

4.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, extensively argued that the impugned action of the respondent-authority is arbitrary and without juri iction.

5.

The matter was earlier adjourned to enable the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to address arguments. Today, the respondents have placed on record an affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is stated that in response to the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on 04.03.2026 that the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13643 petitioners are willing to voluntarily deposit the disputed amount of Rs.61 crores, the respondent-authority is willing to release all the seized immovable properties provided the petitioners deposit a revised amount of Rs.86 crores, as determined by the respondent-authority.

6.

In view of the statement made in the affidavit filed by the respondent-authority, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are willing to deposit in a Bank the said sum of Rs.86,40,37,550/- as determined by the respondent-authority. However, he submits that such deposit shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners and that the petitioners be permitted to agitate all grounds relating to valuation, revised valuation and other issues before the competent authority, including the grounds urged in the present writ petition and such additional grounds as may be available in law. Page No.5 is re-typed and re-placed vide Court order dated 25.03.2026 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13643

7.

In the light of the affidavit filed by the respondent-authority and the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition stands disposed of. (ii) The respondent-authority is directed to forthwith release the nine immovable properties seized from the petitioners, subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.86,40,37,550/- in a Bank and respondent-authority attaching the said bank deposit. (iii) The said deposit shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners, and all contentions of both parties are kept open to be urged before the competent authority in accordance with law. Page No.6 is re-typed and re-placed vide Court order dated 25.03.2026 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13643 (iv) It is further made clear that the petitioners are reserved with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 before the Appellate Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 113

Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.