IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.46236 OF 2018 (GM-FE) BETWEEN:
Direct Dialogue Initiatives India Private Limited No.144 & 144/1, 5th Floor Shuharam Complex, MG Road Bangalore-560 001 Represented by its power of attorney Mr.Binu Jacob … Petitioner (By Sri.K.G.Raghavan, Sr. Adv. A/w Sri.Sharan A Kukriya) AND:
1. Office of the Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement Bangalore Zonal Office 3rd Floor, B Block BMTC, Shanthinagar TTMC KH Road, Shanthinagar Bengaluru- 560 027 Represented by the Assistant Director 2. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Bangalore Zonal Office 3rd Floor, ‘B’ Block BMTC Shanthinagar, TTMC K.H.Road, Shanthinagar Bengaluru-560 027 Represented by the Assistant Director … Respondents (By Sri.Unnikrishna N., ADV.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the directions Dtd: 05.10.2018 (Annexure-H) issued by the respondents to Kotak Mahindra Bank and HDFC Bank Limited, stopping the operation of petitioner’s bank accounts and etc.
This Petition coming on for order this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.K.G.Raghavan Senior counsel along with Sri.Sharan A Kukreja, counsel for petitioner.
Sri.Unnikrishna.N, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of both parties, the same is heard finally.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 14.02.2019 passed in W.P.No.47822/2018. It is further submitted that the impugned notice dated 5.10.2018 has lost its efficacy as the period of 60 days has expired.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that against the impugned notice dated 5.10.2018, appeal lies under Section 17 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and therefore, the petition should be relegated to avail of the alternative remedy as it is the Appellate Forum alone which can record a finding whether or not the impugned notice dated 5.10.2018 has lost its efficacy or not?
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. From a perusal of Section 132(8)A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is evident that the impugned notice dated 5.10.2018 has lost its efficacy as the period of 60 days has expired. Even otherwise, the well settled legal proposition where a pure question of law arises for consideration regarding the availability of alternative remedy cannot be invoked.
7. In this regard reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DR.BAL KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS; reported in 1995(1) SCC 614. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, since pure question of law arises for consideration in the instant case, I am inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy in the peculiar facts of the case. Accordingly, the impugned notice is hereby quashed and the petitioner is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE rs