M/S. Oak Shipping Services PVT. LTD vs. The State Of Maharashtra
Held
The Court noted the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent-State. On instructions from API Mr. Sanjay Sadigle, who was present in Court, it was stated that the EOW, Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai, had decided to withdraw the attachment order dated March 6, 2020, and that this exercise would be completed within one week. In view of this statement, the Court found that nothing further survived for consideration in the petitions. The rule granted in both petitions was discharged, and the petitions were disposed of accordingly. The Court did not delve into the merits of the seizure order itself, as the State agreed to withdraw it.
Facts
The petitioners, M/s. Oak Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. (a Freight Forwarder) and M/s. HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (a Customs House agent), sought to quash a seizure order dated March 6, 2020, issued under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the police. The petitioners had provided services to M/s. P. K. International. M/s. P. K. International was subsequently investigated for allegedly availing ineligible GST returns. As the petitioners had received some payments from M/s. P. K. International, their accounts were frozen by the police. This Court had granted a rule in both petitions on September 29, 2022, and expedited the hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seizure order dated March 6, 2020, issued under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. by the police, is liable to be quashed and set aside? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the seizure order was illegal and sought its quashing. They contended that they were service providers and had received payments legitimately. The freezing of their accounts was an arbitrary action. Revenue's Contention: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai, had decided to withdraw the attachment order dated March 6, 2020. The withdrawal process would be completed within one week from the date of the hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 102
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
904-WP-322 & 325-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 322 OF 2021 M/s. Oak Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 325 OF 2021 M/s. HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondents Mr. Devesh Diwakar Tripathi a/w Ms. Pankti Shah and Ms. Dishita Karnavat for the Petitioners Mr. V. B. Konde Deshmukh, Addl. P.P for the Respondent-State API Mr. Sanjay Sadigle from EOW-1, Navi Mumbai, is present
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE,
JJ.
WEDNESDAY, 3
rd APRIL 2024
P.C : 1
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. SQ Pathan 1/3 SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN QUTBUDDIN PATHAN Date: 2024.04.05 16:19:33 +0530
904-WP-322 & 325-2021.doc 2 The petitioners in both the aforesaid petitions seek quashing of the seizure order dated 6th March 2020 is
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.