R.S. Pathak, J. - (1.) On 5 -6 -1969, the officers of the Customs Department entered the residential premises of the petitioners and seized, among other things, currency notes of the value of Rs. 91,551/ -. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to the return of the currency notes inasmuch as no notice u/S. 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, was served upon them within the statutory period mentioned in S. 110 of that Act. S. 124 prescribes a number of conditions before an order is made confiscating any goods or imposing a penalty. U/Cl. (a) a notice in writing must be given to the person concerned informing him of the ground upon which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty. The notice contemplated by S. 124(a) must be given within six months of the seizure of the goods, otherwise by virtue of S. 110(2) the goods seized must be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The petitioners say that no notice u/S. 124(a) was received within six months of the seizure of the goods. It appears from the material before us that in fact no such notice was given within six months of the seizure of the currency notes. It would seem, therefore, that the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed by them. The respondents have referred to the proviso to S. 110(2) under which the period of six months mentioned in S. 110(2) for giving the notice u/S. 124(a) can, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months. The respondents say that the period was extended up to June 4, 1970 under that proviso, and that before the expiry of the extended period a notice u/S. 124(a) was served upon the petitioner. The service of that notice is disputed by the petitioners. However, it is not necessary for us to enter into that question because we find that the initial period of six months mentioned in S. 110(2) was extended under the proviso to that provision without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to be heard against the extension. It has now been laid down by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Customs v/s. Charan Das Malhotra ( : 1971 (1) SCC 697) that no order extending the time by virtue of the proviso to S. 110(2) can be made without hearing the person from whose possession the goods were seized. It is not denied that no such opportunity was given before the period was extended. In our opinion, the respondents are not entitled to rely upon the extension of the initial period of six months.
(2.) The position then is that the initial period of six months provided by S. 110(2) expired without any notice u/S. 124(a) having been given. Clearly, the petitioners are entitled to the return of the currency notes seized from their possession. The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to return to the petitioners the currency notes of the value of Rs. 91,551/ - seized from them. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.;