9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 729 - HC - CustomsSeeking writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from adjudicating SCN - barred by limitation in terms of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 or not - conclusion of proceedings in view of second proviso of Section 28(9) of the Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - As per the facts given by the petitioner in the writ petition, the petitioner was aware about the notice dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) and, thereafter, adjournments were sought by the petitioner for personal hearing as well as for filing reply, as per details given in para No. 7 of the writ petition. The petitioner appeared for the first time for personal hearing on 01.02.2023 and it was made aware of the extension granted for adjudication of the case by Chief Commissioner of Customs under Section 28 (9) of the Act, 1962, vide letter dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure R-1). The said facts clearly make out that it was on account of non-appearance of the petitioner that the matter was kept adjourned and the same was not concluded. As per the petitioner, it had placed on record the submissions dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-8) and additional submissions dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-9). These submissions were placed on record by the petitioner after the extension was granted vide letter dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure R-1) and since the petitioner itself has taken time, after issuance of notices both dated 28.01.2022 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) for filing reply, the delay cannot be attributed to the respondent for not adjudicating show cause notices. Moreover, the extension was rightly granted, keeping in view letter dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-12), placed on record by the petitioner. There are no ground to entertain the present writ petition and restraining the respondents from adjudicating show cause notices is made out - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the show cause notices dated 28.01.2022 are barred by limitation under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Whether the extension of time for adjudication was validly granted. 3. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed. 4. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition given the availability of alternate remedies. Summary: Issue 1: Limitation under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 The petitioner argued that the show cause notices dated 28.01.2022 should be deemed concluded as they were not adjudicated within one year, as mandated by Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent contended that the delay was due to the petitioner's repeated requests for adjournments and non-cooperation, which necessitated an extension. Issue 2: Validity of Extension for Adjudication The respondent stated that the Chief Commissioner of Customs granted an extension for adjudication under Section 28(9) via a letter dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure R-1). The petitioner was informed of this extension during the first personal hearing on 01.02.2023. The court found that the extension was validly granted, considering the petitioner's delays. Issue 3: Principles of Natural Justice The petitioner claimed that they were not given adequate notice or personal hearing regarding the extension of time. The court noted that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities for personal hearings and to file replies but sought adjournments. The court held that the principles of natural justice were duly followed. Issue 4: Availability of Alternate Remedies The respondent cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that tax matters should not short-circuit statutory remedies and that alternate remedies should be exhausted before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court agreed, stating that the petitioner had alternate remedies available. Conclusion: The court concluded that the delay in adjudicating the show cause notices was primarily due to the petitioner's non-cooperation and requests for adjournments. The extension of time was validly granted, and the principles of natural justice were followed. Therefore, no grounds were found to entertain the writ petition, and it was dismissed. Pending applications were also disposed of.
|
