Delhi High Court Stays DRI Proceedings Against Chairman Of Hero MotoCorp Pawan Kant
The Delhi High Court stayed the Directorate Of Enforcement Of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) proceedings against Pawan Kant, Hero Motocorp Chairman registered under Sections 135(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Customs Act 1962.
The Court listed the matter for February 21, 2024. The Court noted that Pawan was exonerated by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on the same set of facts.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed, “Considering the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, especially the fact that the summoning order has been passed without giving any reasons for the same, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, the matter requires consideration… Further, in the opinion of this Court, considering that the petitioner has been exonerated by the learned CESTAT on the same set of facts and this fact has not been disclosed before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner herein has been able to make out a case for grant of interim protection”.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohtangi, Sandeep Sethi, and Dayan Krishnan appeared for Pawan Kant and Senior Standing Counsel Satish Aggarwal for the Directorate Of Enforcement Of Revenue Intelligence (DRI/Respondents).
A Petition was filed before the Court seeking to quash the complaint filed before the Trial Court under Sections 135(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. Pawan Kant alleged that the order was passed mechanically and without observing that the CESTAT had exonerated him on the same set of facts as the impugned complaint. The DRI regarding the non-disclosure of the CESTAT judgment, asserted that since the DRI was not a party to the CESTAT proceedings, there was no obligation to be aware of or disclose that information.
The Court accepted the contentions of Pawan regarding the lack of reasons for the summoning order. The Court found that this issue required prima facie consideration. Furthermore, the Court also observed that the petitioner had been exonerated by the CESTAT on the same set of facts. The Court concluded that Pawan had made a case for interim protection.
Accordingly, the Court stayed the proceedings against Pawan and listed the matter for February 21, 2024.
Cause Title: Pawan Kant v Directorate Of Enforcement Of Revenue Intelligence
