@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.@mdashThe writ petition is against a show cause and as such the writ petition is disposed of summarily without entering into merits which are to be decided upon by the Department.
2. The seizure of goods took place in May, 1999 from the premises of the writ petitioner. The show cause notice has been issued to a sister concern of the petitioner, viz., Ambica Nahar, a partnership.
3. A particular partner, viz., Anil Jain is also a share-holder of the petitioner company and has made representation on behalf of the partnership also.
4. It is the claim of Mr. Bajoria''s clients that the goods should be released, as the goods are clean and belong to the petitioner and not to the partnership.
5. The cleanliness of the goods is under issue before the Department and no pronouncement is made in that regard.
6. If the show cause notice is against the partnership only, the representation of ownership and claim to that effect can hardly be made by the writ petitioner.
7. On the other hand the issuance of a show cause notice to the writ petitioner afresh would to-day create legal problems as six months have elapsed from the date of seizure.
8. Thus to invite the Department''s decision on merits the writ petitioner is permitted to appear at the hearing of the show cause and make representation along with the representation to be made by Ambica Nahar.
9. Decision to be taken in accordance with law after hearing representations of both the company and the partnership. It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits nor has it in any manner curbed the jurisdiction of the Department to take decision in accordance with law.
10. Allegations in the petition cannot be taken as admitted or submissions conceded by the respondents.
11. The application is summarily disposed of.
12. Parties and all others concerned to act on a xerox signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertakings.
