2016 (11) TMI 1636 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - Alternative remedy - seizure of goods - mechanism for adjudicating the dispute between the parties - HELD THAT - This court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does have a remedy to file reply to the show cause notice dated 02-11-2016 - the question of entertaining the present writ petition at the stage of issuance of show cause notice does not arise. Admission declined.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to seizure memo based on 'Panchanama' dated 19-05-2016, Prematurity of the petition due to initiation of proceedings under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

The petitioner filed a petition against the seizure of goods by the Excise Department based on a 'Panchanama' dated 19-05-2016. The respondent argued that proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 had been initiated against the petitioner, providing a mechanism for resolving the dispute. The respondent contended that the petition was premature. The court noted that the petitioner could reply to the show cause notice issued under the Customs Act, 1962. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the court highlighted that a writ petition against a mere show cause notice is usually premature as it does not give rise to a cause of action unless issued by a person lacking jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a writ lies when a final order adversely affecting a party is passed, not at the show cause notice stage. Therefore, the court declined admission of the petition based on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment.

In conclusion, the court held that entertaining the writ petition at the show cause notice stage was not appropriate, following the Supreme Court's guidance on the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a show cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the rights of a party unless a final order imposing punishment or adversely affecting a party is passed. Therefore, the court found the petition premature and declined admission.