2025 (1) TMI 1543 - HC - Customs

Challenge to SCN - authority to issue showcause notice or initiate any inquiry - HELD THAT - The present petition has been filed after a period of more than 3 months of issuance of the show-cause notice on the premise that a representation dated 09.12.2024 has been sent to the respondent No.4 namely the Director General of Foreign Trade bringing to his notice the factum of issuance of an illegal show-cause notice. Considering the fact that the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court after a period of more than 3 months of issuance of the show-cause notice without submitting any reply to respondent No.3 raising an issue of jurisdiction of respondent No.3 to issue such a notice we do not find any good ground to interfere. The present petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent No.3 by submitting a reply to the notice dated 09.09.2024 inasmuch as it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no further proceedings pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 09.09.2024 has so far been initiated.

Summary

The Gujarat High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, addressed a petition challenging a show-cause notice issued under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argued that the notice, dated 09.09.2024, was issued without jurisdiction by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (respondent No.3) instead of the Director General of Foreign Trade (respondent No.4), who they claimed was the only authorized entity to issue such a notice.The Court noted that the petitioners had not responded to the show-cause notice by raising the jurisdictional issue with respondent No.3 and had delayed filing the petition for over three months after the notice was issued. The petitioners had only sent a representation to respondent No.4 on 09.12.2024, claiming the notice was illegal.Given the delay and the lack of a direct challenge to respondent No.3's jurisdiction in the form of a reply to the notice, the Court found no grounds to interfere. The petition was dismissed, but the Court granted the petitioners the liberty to submit a reply to the notice to respondent No.3, as no further proceedings had been initiated. The petitioners had been informed of a hearing date and had sought adjournment.