2024 (11) TMI 595 - HC - Customs

Demand / claim made against the petitioner - placing reliance upon the information collected from Wikipedia - grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner specifically pointing out that the respondent was not entitled to place reliance upon the information collected from the Wikipedia and had also put forth various other contentions, the respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order HELD THAT - As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the Show Cause Notice dated 15.03.2023 will indicate that at paragraph K of the Show Cause Notice, the respondent has placed reliance on the information said to have been secured from the Wikipedia, which is impermissible in law, in the light of the judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court Ponds India Ltd. 2008 (5) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT and HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD 2023 (1) TMI 700 - SUPREME COURT So also, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that despite the petitioner putting forth several other contentions and producing various documents, the same have not been considered by the respondent who has mechanically / summarily confirmed the demand without considering or appreciating the material on record, thereby warranting interference by this Court.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of Order-in-original, Reliance on Wikipedia information, Consideration of petitioner's contentions, Setting aside of impugned order, Remitting matter back to respondent for reconsideration, Opportunity for additional pleadings

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the impugned Order-in-original passed by the respondents and other reliefs. The petitioner's counsel argued that the reliance on information from Wikipedia by the respondent was impermissible in law, citing judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner contended that despite raising various defenses and objections, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering the petitioner's submissions. The petitioner urged the court to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The respondents' counsel opposed the petition, claiming no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court noted that the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order both relied on information from Wikipedia, which was deemed impermissible in law based on previous judgments. Additionally, the court observed that the respondent did not consider the petitioner's contentions and documents, merely confirming the demand mechanically. Consequently, the court found grounds to interfere in the matter.

In the final order, the court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration in compliance with the law. The court also granted the petitioner liberty to submit additional pleadings and documents, emphasizing that the respondent must provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a chance for a personal hearing. The court directed the respondent to proceed further in accordance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referenced earlier.