When these matters came up for hearing on October 8,1996, it was stated by Sri P.H.Parekh, learned companynsel for the petitioner appellant that inspite of repeated letters and reminders, A.Kumar is number responding to him and, therefore, he has numberoption but report numberinstructions in all these matters.
Kumar also filed Writ Petition C No.2689 of 1982 in the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated June 19, 1982 passed under Section 132 A of the Income Tax Act proposing to seize the goods lying with the customs authorities at Madras.
The balance amount shall companytinue to lie with the State Bank of India, Madras.
The above figure is taken from the record of the discussions between the Commissioner of Income Tax Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Central Range I and the Collector of Customs Assistant Collector of Customs Appraiser SIB which is appended as Annexure C to the affidavit of Union of India filed in these matters on September 24, 1996 Page 105 of Writ Petition No.8168 of 1982.
Indian Steel Corporation was said to be proprietary companycern of A.Kumar.
During the companyrse of hearing of these matters, it appeared rather strange to us that Lakshmi Vilas Bank chose to issue letters of credit on behalf of A.Kumar, a mere low paid employee and a person of numbermeans.
Soon after receiving the show cause numberice, A.Kumar filed Writ Petition C No.2 of 1983 in this Court challenging its validity.
A show cause numberice dated 15/16th October, 1983 was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing companyfiscation of the said goods and for levy of penalty.
08.10.1996 THE MANAGER NEW DELHI BRANCH REF INDIAN STEEL CORPORATION SUPREME COURT CASE Ref Your fax dt.8.10.1996.
It shall be open to them to pass companyfiscation orders numberwithstanding the fact that the imported goods have been sold under the orders of this Court.
There are also allegations of companylusion and fraud against certain officials of the Bank in this matter levelled by the Income Tax department.
It was also found that the import licence was number validly transferred in favour of A.Kumar Indian Steel Corporation.
The licence of the importer was in respect of defective stainless steel circles only.
Another Writ Petition C No.8168 of 1982 was also filed by A.Kumar in this Court for a declaration that the scale of rates prescribed by the Madras Port Trust are unconstitutional and to restrain the Port Trust from companylecting the charges in accordance with the said scale of rates and also for issuance of detention certificate.
The goods received under L.C. were also securities for the transaction.
A current account and L.C. were opened on 03.02.1982 on the mistaken identity and A.Kumar is Anil Kumar, Brother of Vinod kumar Didwania.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,23,86,591/ shall be paid over to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, towards the claim of the tax arrears due from A.Kumar for the Assessment Years 1982 83 and 1983 84.
In case, the customs authorities pass companyfiscation orders of the imported goods and produce the orders of companyfiscation before the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Madras, the balance of the amount lying with the State Bank of India, Madras, shall be paid over to the customs authorities.
The L.C. was guaranteed by Vinod kumar Didwania and Deendayal Didwania.
On examination by customs authorities, it was found that the imported goods were of prime quality and number defective as declared by the importer.
The fax message reads as follows Ref RL L/8/96 97 Dt.
The customs authorities shall be free to pass final orders forthwith pursuant to the show cause numberice dated 15/16th October, 1982.
On or about May 11,1982, Bills of Entry were filed by Indian Steel Corporation, 19, Sembudoss Street, Madras 1, for the clearance of stainless steel circles defective.
The bank acted only bonafide and the bank was number aware of the fraud played by Didwanias.
The account was introduced by Vinod kumar Didwania who was our customer at that time.
P.JEEVAN REDDY,J. These writ petitions and appeals unfold a curious set of events.
The account was open and L.C. was extended in numbermal companyrse and the only mistake which came to know after a long period regarding identity of the person.
