9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 473 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - power to issue SCN - It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.5 has no jurisdiction to issue any notices of demand which are impugned in this writ petition - HELD THAT - The respondent nos.4 and 5 and their subordinate Officers are directed not to proceed with the impugned demand notices dated 18th August, 2021 and 30th August, 2021 annexed at Exhibits O and Q respectively and not to proceed with the investigation proposed by them pursuant to the impugned demand notices against the petitioner in respect of 13 vessels which are already assessed by the respondent no.3 at Mumbai till 31st March, 2022. The respondents are at liberty to apply for vacating the order in the event of any order passed in their favour by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the review petition thereby reviewing the judgment in case of M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT . Place the matter on board for directions on 28th March, 2022.
Issues:
Impugning jurisdiction of notices dated 18th August, 2021 and 30th August, 2021. Jurisdiction of respondent no.5 to issue demand notices. Validity of demand notices for recovery of ?2,64,21,996. Applicability of previous judgments on jurisdictional issues. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the notices dated 18th August, 2021, and 30th August, 2021, on the grounds of lacking jurisdiction and violating principles of natural justice. It was argued that the respondent no.5, who issued the impugned notices, did not have the authority to do so as the assessment for 13 vessels was completed by respondent no.3 in Mumbai, where all bill of entries were filed and duties were paid. The petitioner relied on various judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Customs, to support the claim that respondent no.5 lacked jurisdiction in this matter. Additionally, the petitioner cited a judgment of the Bombay High Court in a similar case to bolster the argument against the jurisdiction of respondent no.5. On the contrary, the respondent nos.4 and 5 argued that a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had previously granted a stay on a show-cause notice in a similar case, and the Revenue had filed a review petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the jurisdictional issues. It was clarified that in the present case, respondent no.5 had not issued a show-cause notice, and the demand notices under question were for the recovery of ?2,64,21,996. The petitioner, in response, relied on additional judgments from the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court to support their argument against the jurisdiction of respondent no.5. The Court, after considering the arguments and precedents cited by both parties, decided to pass an order similar to a previous decision of the Division Bench of the Court. The Court opined that the issue raised in the writ petition was no longer res integra in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. The Court directed the respondent nos.4 and 5 and their subordinate officers to refrain from proceeding with the impugned demand notices and any proposed investigation until 31st March, 2022. The respondents were given the option to apply for vacating the order if the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled in their favor in the review petition. If the review petition was not decided by the specified date, the petitioner could request the continuation of the interim relief. The matter was scheduled for further directions on 28th March, 2022.
|
