2022 (2) TMI 1347 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing petition - petition has been filed after four years from the date of issuance of the impugned show cause notice without any cogent explanation for the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition - HELD THAT - Had the impugned show cause notice bad in law or without jurisdiction at the time of issuance of the impugned show cause notice and if at all petitioner was aggrieved by such notice he could have come before the Writ Court immediately after issuance of the impugned show cause notice. The conduct of the petitioner shows that immediately after issuance of the impugned show cause notice he sat over it and did not approach the Writ Court by taking the point of jurisdictional error or point of law if any against the impugned show cause notice which was issued in the year 2017 and instead the petitioner himself has chosen to give reply to the said show cause notice and has submitted to the jurisdiction of the respondent authority concerned. So it cannot be contended by the petitioner that the impugned show cause notice at the time of issuance in 2017 was without jurisdiction or bad in law in 2022. Petitioner relies on an unreported decision of Delhi High Court in GOPAL GUPTA VERSUS PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE NEW DELHI 2021 (4) TMI 788 - DELHI HIGH COURT - On perusal of order of Delhi High Court, which is an interim order and not a final order apart from the fact that it is not binding on this Court. It also appears from the said interim order of Delhi High Court that the impugned show cause notice was issued on 26th September, 2019 and the writ petition was filed in that case in early 2021. So, factually point of delay is different in that case from this case and in that case it could not be called an inordinate delay. The petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to show cause notice dated 4th December, 2017 after a delay of four years without a cogent explanation.
2. Invocation of constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without a valid reason for inordinate delay.
3. Petitioner's conduct in delaying approaching the Writ Court after issuance of the impugned show cause notice in 2017.
4. Reliance on an unreported decision of Delhi High Court dated 12th April, 2021 in another case for comparison of delay.
5. Dismissal of the writ petition WPA 1615 of 2022 by the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 4th December, 2017, after a delay of four years without providing any cogent explanation for the delay. The High Court noted that while there is no specific limitation for invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there should be a valid reason for any inordinate delay in approaching the court. The petitioner's attempt to revive the cause of action by a notice of hearing issued on 7th January, 2022, was considered untimely due to the significant delay in filing the writ petition.

2. The High Court emphasized the importance of timely action in invoking the Constitutional writ jurisdiction, highlighting that the petitioner did not approach the Writ Court immediately after the issuance of the impugned show cause notice in 2017. The petitioner's conduct of delaying the legal challenge and choosing to respond to the show cause notice instead of questioning its jurisdiction at the time of issuance was taken into account in the judgment.

3. The Court addressed the petitioner's reliance on an unreported decision of the Delhi High Court dated 12th April, 2021, in a different case for comparison of delay. The High Court clarified that the Delhi High Court's interim order was not binding and the factual circumstances regarding the delay were different in that case compared to the present case. The Court emphasized that each case should be considered based on its unique facts and circumstances.

4. Considering the submissions of both parties and the detailed analysis provided, the High Court concluded that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition WPA 1615 of 2022. The petition was dismissed, although the dismissal did not prevent the petitioner from participating in the hearing related to the impugned show cause notice if they chose to do so. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely legal action and the need for a valid explanation for any delays in approaching the court for constitutional remedies.