The division bench of bench of Delhi High Court has dismissed the application to release passport since Lookout Circular pending against applicant under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.
The Single Judge, by the Impugned Order permitted the respondent, Bhavya Bishnoi, to travel to the United States of America for a period of two years to attend to the Master in Public Administration Course at Harvard Kennedy School, subject to conditions. Aggrieved by the order the appellant department filed appeal before the division bench.
The father of the respondent Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi voluntarily deposited his passport with the Registrar General of the High Court. It was clarified that when the father of the respondent would require the said passports for certain “genuine and valid reasons”, he may apply to the Court for necessary permission in that regard. Later the father of the respondent filed the application seeking the release of his passports, claiming that he needs to travel to the USA for necessary treatment of thyroid cancer at the Clayman Thyroid Centre in Tampa, Florida, USA, and also to attend the commencement ceremony of graduation of his only daughter in the USA.
The appellant revenue contended that apart from the respondent, the applicant himself is facing trial for offences punishable under Section 50 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. Though he has been granted bail in those proceedings, the Court while granting bail was persuaded by the fact that the applicant’s passports already stood deposited before this Court. Revenue further submitted that a Lookout Circular has been issued against the applicant in his own name and, therefore, in any case, he cannot be allowed to leave the country.
The Coram of Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Acting Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, has observed that the appointment appears to be in response to the request sent by the applicant. The applicant has not produced any document to show that the said appointment was immediately required for his health reasons. A voluntary appointment taken cannot constitute a “genuine and valid reason”.
The division bench held that “the applicant would, therefore, have to first seek an appropriate order against the said Lookout Circular, in accordance with the law, before leaving the country. The present application, therefore, is premature”. Further held by the High Court that “we find no merit in the present application. The same is accordingly dismissed”.
Advocates Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr. Shaliendra Singh and Mr. Udit Sharma appeared for the appellant and Advocates, Mr. N.P. Sahni, Mr. Naveen Kumar and Mr. Anand Chaudhary appeared for the applicant.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
