2017 (9) TMI 403 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - validity of SCN - Challenge to the show cause notice is only on the ground that it is wholly without jurisdiction, as for the very same allegation and for the very same period, earlier notice was issued to the petitioner, on 31.10.2014 - Held that - The Court came to the conclusion that in the light of categorical assertions and findings in the show cause notice dated 02.07.2014, no useful purpose would be served in asking the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice. It was pointed out that, at the stage of issuance of show cause notice, the first respondent should only have an open mind and if mind is closed with pre-determined conclusions, the requirement of giving an opportunity to show cause becomes nugatory. Based on the very same set of allegations one more show cause notice cannot be issued by the respondents, as done in the impugned show cause notice - the impugned show cause notice cannot stand in the eyes of law - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 on grounds of jurisdiction due to prior notice issued for the same allegation and period.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Sub Regulation 1 of Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction as a previous notice for the same allegation and period had been issued earlier. The petitioner had filed a writ petition (W.P.No.31596 of 2014) challenging a show cause notice dated 31.10.2014, which was a repetition of a previous notice dated 02.07.2014. The Court had granted an interim stay on the second notice on 03.12.2014, and the first writ petition (W.P.No.21941 of 2014) had been allowed by the Court on 15.09.2014, concluding that issuing another notice after the disposal of the first petition was unjustified. The Court emphasized that the authority issuing a show cause notice should have an open mind, and issuing repetitive notices based on the same allegations was improper.

The petitioner contended that the second show cause notice was a verbatim repetition of the first notice, and since the first writ petition was still pending with an order of stay in force, issuing another notice for the same allegations was legally untenable. The Court acknowledged that the earlier writ petition was still pending and the show cause notice dated 31.10.2014 had been stayed, leading to the conclusion that the impugned notice could not be sustained in law. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order solely on the technical ground of the notice being issued while a previous petition was pending, without delving into the merits of the case. No costs were awarded, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed.