2014 (3) TMI 1083 - HC - Customs

Validity of SCN - whether the period of six months prescribed u/s 110(2) of the CA, 1962 should be further extended for six months? - alternate statutory remedy - maintainability of appeal - Held that - reliance was placed in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited 2012 (1) TMI 133 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , where it was held that We refrain from interfering with the assessment order and dispose of the writ petition by relegating the petitioner to the appellate authority to challenge the assessment order before it - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to quash Show Cause Notice under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for extension of period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in trading imported automobile parts, faced a search by respondent No. 2 officers resulting in seizure of records, goods, and containers. Allegations of misdeclaration and duty underpayment were made. Despite a deposit of Rs. 25 lacs for goods release, they remained seized. The petitioner filed a petition challenging the show cause notice for extending the period under Section 110(2) of the Act.

The petitioner's counsel cited judgments to argue that challenging a show cause notice in writ proceedings is permissible. However, the court referred to Larsen and Toubro Limited v. The State of Haryana, stating that a writ petition can be entertained without exhausting statutory remedies only in specific cases like fundamental rights enforcement, natural justice failure, or jurisdictional issues. The Apex Court's ruling in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Limited emphasized utilizing the statutory remedy provided by the Act for challenging orders of assessment.

The court found no merit in the writ petition, dismissing it. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, with the directive for the respondent authority to issue a detailed order addressing the petitioner's objections in compliance with the law. The judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel were deemed irrelevant to the case at hand, and the petitioner was advised to follow the statutory procedure for challenging the assessment orders.