2021 (10) TMI 196 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to investigate as to whether there has been misuse of Export Incentive Scheme by the petitioner - HELD THAT - There is no explanation in the writ petition as to what triggered it, in the first place, and what made the petitioner apprehend that adverse action is in the offing. That after issuance of the impugned show-cause notice the respondents have not acted in any manner to infringe the rights of the petitioner it has been 7 (years) since , is an important circumstance that needs to be borne in mind. Also, there being no real threat of infringement of any of its rights, the petitioner does not have the cause of action even for moving this Court at this stage. Without a cause of action , the right of action is meaningless. This is not a fit case to even examine as to whether the show-cause notice is non est in the eyes of law. Noticing that a notice for hearing had been issued to such writ petitioner, the writ petition is disposed off. Since the final order on the proceedings was yet to be passed, the interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the petitioner were granted the liberty to file an application before the respondent no. 2 to urge before such respondent that in view of the ratio of the decision in Canon India 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT , the proceedings cannot be carried further; and upon such an application being made, the respondent no. 2 was directed to proceed in accordance with lay by passing either a preliminary order or a final order, as the case may be, in the proceedings. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show-cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962 based on lack of authority of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to investigate misuse of Export Incentive Scheme. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 to assist when constitutional or legal rights are infringed. Whether interference in the case is justified.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962, dated 23rd June 2014, on the grounds that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence lacked authority to investigate the alleged misuse of the Export Incentive Scheme. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision to support this argument. The High Court acknowledged that a writ petition can be maintained if the authority issuing the notice lacks jurisdiction. However, the court emphasized that such petitions should not be entertained as a matter of routine.

2. The petitioner admitted that there had been no infringement of their rights since the issuance of the show-cause notice in 2014. The absence of any actual or imminent threat to the petitioner's rights raised questions about the necessity of the writ petition. The court highlighted the importance of a cause of action for initiating legal proceedings, stating that without it, the right of action becomes meaningless.

3. Referring to a previous case where a show-cause notice was challenged on similar grounds, the court emphasized the need for the petitioner to respond to the notice and raise jurisdictional issues based on the relevant legal precedent. The court directed the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice within four weeks and allowed the concerned authority to proceed with the case based on the response received.

4. The court concluded by disposing of the writ petition, providing directions for the petitioner to respond to the show-cause notice within the specified timeframe. The judgment left all contentions on merits open and did not award any costs. The decision highlighted the importance of a valid cause of action and the need for parties to follow due process in challenging legal notices.