2024 (1) TMI 474 - HC - Customs

Validity of second show cause notice - Withdrawal of First SCN thereafter - Issuance of SCN u/s 28(4) read with Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Challenging on the ground of same cause of action and during pendency of the proceedings pursuant to the first show-cause notice - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of sub-section (9) of Section 28 of the Act, 1962 shows that though clause (d) provides that the proper officer shall determine the amount of duty or interest under sub-section (8), within one year from the date of notice, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4) but the first proviso, further provides that where the proper officer fails to so determine within the specified period, any officer senior in rank to the proper officer may having regard to the circumstances under which the proper officer was prevented from determining the amount of duty or interest under sub section (8) extend the period specified in clause (a) to a further period of six months and the period specified in clause (b) to a further period of one year. Therefore, in our view the period under clause (b) of sub-section (9) is extendable for a further period of one year. It is not the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said period was not extended. Such extendable period has also yet not expired. It is also not the submission that the period for determination, if not extended as of now, cannot be extended. The second proviso upon which much reliance has been placed would come into effect only after the expiry of the extended period. There are no valid ground to entertain the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the show-cause notice issued under Section 28(4) read with Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Judgment Details:
The petitioner argued that the second show-cause notice could not be issued on the same cause of action as the first notice, citing a Supreme Court case. However, the second notice included new bill amounts. The respondents contended that the second notice was valid as more bills were added and the competent authority issued it. The court noted that the second notice was issued by the competent authority and included additional bill amounts.

In a previous case, the Supreme Court held that a second show-cause notice could not be issued on the same cause of action after final adjudication. In the present case, there was no final adjudication on the first notice, making it distinguishable. The petitioner argued that the period for determining duty or interest had expired from the first notice, but the court found that the period under the Act was extendable.

The court found no valid ground to entertain the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice. The petitioner was given the option to file a reply before the authority concerned as the proceedings were still pending. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.