9911796707
TMI BlogJurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Customs NoticesX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers to issue show cause notices u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is cured; (b) whether the Legislature has the competence to validate such notices through the Finance Act, 2022 ; and (c) whether such validation is consistent with the rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. 2. ARGUMENTS PRESENTED The primary contentions of the parties (anonymized) are as follows: Petitioner's Arguments: The Finance Act, 2022 cannot overrule the finding of fact in Canon India regarding the actual exercise of jurisdiction by DRI officers. Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 , which validates past show cause notices, fails to create a reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate, viola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 and recovery of duty u/s 28 are distinct. Canon India erroneously held that Section 28(4) involves re-assessment, which is not the case after the introduction of self-assessment in Section 17 . c) Validation through Finance Act, 2022: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 , which validates past show cause notices issued by DRI officers. It found that the validation cures the defect pointed out in Canon India and is a valid exercise of legislative power. d) Retrospective Application of Amendments: The Court rejected the argument that the retrospective application of amended Sections 2 , 3 , and 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 , through Section 97(iii) is unconstitutional. It held that the retrospect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituated officers on the ground of want of jurisdiction shall be dealt with in accordance with the observations made in the judgment. 5. DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS The judgment discusses and applies several legal principles and doctrines, including: Legislative Competence and Validation: The Court reiterated the principles laid down in previous judgments regarding the Legislature's competence to validate a law and remove defects through retrospective legislation. It emphasized that the validity of a validating law depends on whether the Legislature possesses the competence over the subject matter and whether it removes the defect pointed out by the courts. Purposive Interpretation: The Court relied on the principle of purposive interpretation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
