2024 (3) TMI 705 - HC - Customs

Territorial Jurisdiction - Validity of summons issued - investigation against the assessee at different locations - Import of gold and silver findings - summons issued u/s 108 by the third respondent, which is the Customs Department in Hyderabad - petitioner is based in Uttar Pradesh and that investigation has been initiated in Chennai and Hyderabad - HELD THAT - Challenge is to a summons dated 09.02.2024 and proceedings pursuant thereto. Except in extraordinary situations or in cases where the person issuing the summons does not have jurisdiction or authority to do so, it is inappropriate in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with summons' and proceedings pursuant thereto. In this case, the earlier summons and investigation was undertaken by the Customs Department in Hyderabad. The impugned summons was issued by the DRI at Chennai. At this preliminary stage, it is neither advisable nor appropriate to second guess the object and purpose of the investigation. As correctly pointed out by learned junior standing counsel for the third respondent, the fact situation in this case is different from that in the judgment of the Division Bench in as much as the petitioner here is based in Uttar Pradesh. More importantly, in this case, the earlier investigation was at the instance of the Customs Department and this investigation is at the instance of the DRI, Chennai. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned summons. Therefore, W.P.No.5880 of 2024 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.6511 of 2024 is closed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involve the jurisdiction of investigation between the Customs Department in Hyderabad and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in Chennai regarding the import of gold and silver findings by a private limited company based in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Investigation
The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the summons issued by the DRI in Chennai regarding the import of gold findings, arguing that the investigation should be undertaken by the Customs Department in Hyderabad where the earlier proceedings had taken place. The petitioner's counsel relied on a previous judgment to support the request for investigation in Hyderabad. The senior standing counsel for the first and second respondents highlighted that the investigation by customs authorities is limited to tariff value, while the DRI's investigation has a wider scope. The junior standing counsel for the third respondent emphasized that the petitioner does not have the authority to choose the investigating officer or the location of the investigation, pointing out the petitioner's location in Uttar Pradesh. The court held that interference with summons and proceedings is inappropriate unless in extraordinary situations or lack of jurisdiction, and declined to interfere with the DRI's summons, noting the differences in the current case compared to the previous judgment.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the summons dated 09.02.2024 and the proceedings, stating that it is not advisable to second guess the purpose of the investigation at this preliminary stage. The court did not find grounds to interfere with the summons and closed the related application without costs.