9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed as suggested by Mr. Kantharia. Even the impugned order proceeds on the basis of show cause notice issued to petitioner which was pending adjudication and the offence that had been booked by DRI which was pending investigation. Respondent No.2 gives finding against petitioner of diverting of goods in contravention of the provisions of Section 71 of the Act and he also relies on certain panchanams. None of these points were mentioned in the show cause notice to enable petitioner to satisfactorily show cause - The points which Respondent No.2 has mentioned in the impugned order do not even find mention in the show cause notice that was issued to petitioner. Issuance of show cause notice is not an empty formality. Its purpose is to give a reasonable opportunity to the affected persons to contend with the allegations in the show cause notice are not correct. The person issuing show cause notice shall inform a person who is likely to be affected by any order proposed to be made about the materials on the basis of which the authority proposes to take action and give a fair and reasonable opportunity to such person to represent his case and to correct or controvert the material sough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been licenced under Section 58 of the Act as private bonded warehouse vide licence dated 18th October 1994. Respondent No.2 extended licence for a further period of two years with effect from 18 th October 1999. It was further extended for a period of two years with effect from 18th October 2001 and once again for a further period of two years from 18th October 2003 to 31st March 2005. 3. Unit-II of petitioner also was licenced under Section 58 of the Act as private bonded warehouse vide licence dated 14th November 2003. The licence was valid till 31st March 2005. 4. During the course of its business, petitioner received various show cause notices and complaints were also registered against petitioner for alleged violation of the licence requirement. Petitioner s licence was also suspended by Respondent No.2 without issuing show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of being heard and without pendency of an enquiry under Clause (b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 58 of the Act. This order was challenged by petitioner in Writ Petition No.7049 of 2004 that was filed in this court. This court by an order dated 2nd September 2004, set aside the order of Respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner has contravened the provisions of Section 71, 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Condition No. 6 of licence dated 14 th November 2003 and 18th October 1994. There is nothing more in the show cause notice. Therefore, it is quite clear that Respondent No.2 has issued Show Cause Notice on the basis of pending show cause notices and a complaint which were yet to be adjudicated. Mr. Kantharia submits that later some of the show cause notices were adjudicated against petitioner and in one matter it was already adjudicated before show cause notice dated 4th October 2004 was issued. It can be of no assistance to respondent because that is not the case of Respondent No.2 in the show cause notice dated 4th October 2004 that he had issued to petitioner. 9. Even in the impugned order which was passed almost more than three months later, there is no reference to any of the orders being passed as suggested by Mr. Kantharia. Even the impugned order proceeds on the basis of show cause notice issued to petitioner which was pending adjudication and the offence that had been booked by DRI which was pending investigation. Respondent No.2 gives finding against petitioner of diverting of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priate authority should give to the person likely to be affected by the order proposed to be made a notice of the action intended to be taken, inform him about the materials on the basis of which the appropriate authority proposes to take action for preemptive purchase and give a fair and reasonable opportunity to such person to represent his case and to correct or controvert the material sought to be relied upon against him. Hence, in the show-cause notice under Section 269UD of the Act, provisional conclusions are required to be briefly specified. These provisional conclusions are required to be briefly specified so that the affected persons could correct or controvert the same effectively. If a vague show- cause notice is given without specifying anything as has been done in this case or without specifying the grounds for holding that the property is required to be purchased under Section 269 UD of the Act, then it can be held that reasonable opportunity of showing cause has not been given. The transferor and transferee would be totally unaware of the grounds which had prompted the appropriate authority to arrive at prime facie conclusion that the power under Section 269UD( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court has in the case of B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana, (1973) 3 SCC 149 : AIR 1972 SC 2472 observed as under (at page 2474) : There is nothing, however, in the 'Show-Cause Notice' of 26th October 1966 to indicate clearly that the dissatisfaction of Government with the appellant's reply of 18 December 1956 had nothing to do with Charge 1(a). The 'Show-Cause-Notice' merely states in vague general terms that the appellant's reply to the charges and allegations was unsatisfactory. Even if we were to assume, though there is no reasonable ground for this assumption, that Government did not have in mind the contents of Charge 1(a) while serving this 'Show-Cause-Notice', there is nothing in the 'Show- Cause-Notice' to give any indication that the particular allegations regarding which the appellant had failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation were referable only to Charge 1(b). The notice is vague on other grounds as well. As one reads the first paragraph of the notice, the questions that at once assail one's mind are many : In what way was the explanation of the appellant unsatisfactory ? Which part of the appellant's explan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
