9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that a complete mechanism is provided for ventilating the grievance before the authorities, does not arise. This Court in similar circumstances has declined to interfere in the matter, as it was certainly against the Show Cause Notice. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present Writ Petition is certainly a premature Writ Petition. Petitioner does have a remedy to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. He does have a remedy to raise all possible grounds before the Addl. Director General, Directorate General of Central Intelligence and, therefore, the admission is declined. Petition disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endorsement of Brewery License and Bottling License in favour of SKOL Breweries Ltd., from the M. P. Excise Authorities on 31/3/2008. Petitioner has further stated that the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, respondent No.4, conducted search operations in the factory and office premises of the petitioner on 23/8/2012 and vide letter dated 7/9/2012 and 23/8/2012 demanded copies of lease rent and license endorsement fee entered between the petitioner and the SKOL. The petitioner in turn submitted all the documents and thereafter a Show Cause Notice has been issued and the respondent No.3 Addl. Director General has found that without causing the leasing of Factory along with Brewery License, SKOL Breweries would not be able to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply in the matter and has answered each and every ground raised by the petitioner, but the fact remains that the petitioner is against Show Cause Notice alone. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440, in paragraph 5 and 6 has held as under : 5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered opinion that all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition can certainly be looked into by the Authority which has issued the Show Cause Notice ie., the Addl. Director General. The petitioner shall certainly be free to raise all possible grounds and shall also be given opportunity of hearing in the matter and, therefore, the question of interference does not arise. In another case, again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Jain Shudh Vanaspati reported in (1996) 10 SCC 520, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 has held as under : It is relevant to bear in mind that the issuance of the showcause notice under Section 124 contemplates that the respondents' resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Department. Seizure memo is under challenge. However, reply has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this court towards show cause notice issued u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. His contention is that proceedings have been initiated under the Customs Act against the petitioner and the Customs Act, 1962 provides a complete mechanism for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. His further contention is that petition is premature. This court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does have a remedy to file reply to the show cause notice dated 02- 11-2016. The Apex Court in the case in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
