Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
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

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 2 OCTOBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for October 2, 2026.GSTCAN GST CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS BE...

Business Purpose Alone Can’t Secure GST Credit: GSTAT Upholds ITC Disallowance For Lack Of Evidence

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ghaziabad Bench, has upheld the disallowance...

Annual Return Errors Can’t Defeat ITC Protected By Retrospective S. 16(5): GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), State Bench at Ghaziabad, has set...

Marriage Reaches ‘Dead End’: SC Grants Divorce Granted With ₹35 Lakh Alimony

The Supreme Court has dissolved a marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 of...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 2 OCTOBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for October 2, 2026.GSTCAN GST CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS BE...

Business Purpose Alone Can’t Secure GST Credit: GSTAT Upholds ITC Disallowance For Lack Of Evidence

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ghaziabad Bench, has upheld the disallowance...

Annual Return Errors Can’t Defeat ITC Protected By Retrospective S. 16(5): GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), State Bench at Ghaziabad, has set...