HomeIndirect TaxesIRS Officer Cleared in ₹160 Crore Diamond Overvaluation Case Due to Lack...

IRS Officer Cleared in ₹160 Crore Diamond Overvaluation Case Due to Lack of Evidence

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

A special CBI court has discharged Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Chandrashekhar Manikanhaiya, citing lack of evidence to prove any criminal conspiracy on his part. The court noted that the officer was on leave during the time when the contentious valuation of imported rough diamonds took place.

Special Judge S.M. Menjoge noted, “There is no prima facie evidence to establish that the applicant was part of the conspiracy.” The court accepted that merely procedural lapses, especially when the officer was not present at the time, do not constitute criminal conspiracy.

The case dates back to 2020, when the CBI alleged that Manikanhaiya, then serving as Deputy Commissioner (Imports) at the Precious Cargo Customs Clearance Centre (PCCCC) in Mumbai, had conspired with others to facilitate the clearance of overvalued diamond consignments imported from Hong Kong. The accused companies—M/s Antique Exim Pvt Ltd and M/s Tanman Jewels Pvt Ltd—were said to have imported cheap quality rough diamonds and falsely declared inflated values.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which originally flagged the case, had intercepted 14 consignments in 2018 that were grossly overvalued. The DRI concluded that the undervalued imports were being used to defraud the government.

However, during the hearing, it emerged that Manikanhaiya was on sanctioned leave from June 22 to July 27, 2018—exactly when the valuation and inspection of the disputed consignments occurred. His defense pointed out that he was not involved in the preparation of related documents, had no interaction with Trade Expert Advisory Valuers, and was not informed that the valuations had occurred during his absence.

The court observed that the note sheets and relevant documents were handled and signed by another official, not Manikanhaiya, further weakening the case against him.

With the discharge of Manikanhaiya, the focus now shifts to the other accused, including two officials and the import firms, as investigations continue into one of the country’s significant customs fraud cases.

Read More: Provisional Attachment Of Cash Credit Account

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GST Dept. Can’t Reassess Undisputed Pre-GST CENVAT Credit Through TRAN-1 Proceedings: GSTAT Restores Rs. 32.80 Crore Transitional ITC 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thane Bench, has held that GST...

No Mandatory Pre-Deposit in Penalty-Only GST Appeals Arising Before Oct. 1, 2025: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Hyderabad Bench, has held that taxpayers...

Retrospective Invocation of S. 122(1A) for FY 2018–19 Questioned: Allahabad High Court Stays GST Penalty Recovery

The Allahabad High Court has granted interim protection to a taxpayer by staying coercive...

GST | Allahabad High Court Restores Opportunity to Reply in S. 74 Proceedings, Quashes Adjudication Order Passed Without Hearing

The Allahabad High Court has set aside a GST adjudication order passed against an...

More like this

GST Dept. Can’t Reassess Undisputed Pre-GST CENVAT Credit Through TRAN-1 Proceedings: GSTAT Restores Rs. 32.80 Crore Transitional ITC 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thane Bench, has held that GST...

No Mandatory Pre-Deposit in Penalty-Only GST Appeals Arising Before Oct. 1, 2025: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Hyderabad Bench, has held that taxpayers...

Retrospective Invocation of S. 122(1A) for FY 2018–19 Questioned: Allahabad High Court Stays GST Penalty Recovery

The Allahabad High Court has granted interim protection to a taxpayer by staying coercive...