9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inistrative changes.' Conclusion - The officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 and are competent to issue show cause notice thereunder. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR. AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JUDGE For the Appellants : Mr. Bhavesh Acharya, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Nayak, on behalf of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate. JUDGMENT ON BOARD PER RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5388/2021 whereby the petition filed by the writ petitioner challenging the seizure proceedings initiated by the appellants herein whereby certain gold and silver articles were seized from the office and residential premises of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) has been allowed and the notice/summons issued to the writ petitioner by the appellants has also been quashed. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant-Revenue is that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) is the Proprietor of a Jewellery Shop namely Jewellers Jasraj Shantilal Baid . The office and the residential premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case was affected by the officer authorized for the purpose under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962, was a working officer of Customs Department at Raipur and thus there was no basis to apply the ratio of the judgment in Canon India case. Further, the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that there was no infirmity in extension of time for issuance of notice as granted by the Additional Director General of DRI as well as in the investigation being conducted by the DRI, as the same had not been the subject matter in the judgment in Canon India case. The DRI officers are customs officers, and DRI itself is not a separate department but is a Directorate functioning under the administrative control of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (erstwhile Central Board of Excise and Customs). DRI officers have always been appointed as the officers of Customs under section 4 (1) of the Act. This has been done through a series of Notifications issued by the Central Government (till 11.05.2002, and by the Board afterward) right from 01.02.1963 to 16.09.2014. The relevant Notifications in chronological order, are as under: (i) Notification No. 37 /F. No. 4/1 /63-CAR. dated 01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector of DRI, who are customs officers, and thus empowered to dispense the functions in relation to Section 110(2) and Section 105 of the Act. Hence, there was no infirmity in the present case in extension of issuance of notice by the period of further six months and initiation of the search proceedings by DRI. Further the seizure in the instant case has been made by a Customs officer who is undisputedly the proper officer even if the ratio of Canon India judgment is applied. 7. Mr. Acharya lastly submits that recently, the Hon ble Apex Court, in Review Petition (Civil) No. 400/2021 in Civil Appeal No. No. 1827/2018 , has allowed the review petition filed by Commissioner of Customs wherein one of the issues was the same as is involved in this petition and as such, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner could not controvert the above submission made by Mr. Acharya. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. The issue raised before the learned Single Judge was whether the proceedings initiated by the authorities of the Appellants was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notices under challenge in Canon India (supra) were issued, were passed under Section 17 of the Act, 1962 as amended by the Finance Act, 2011. (iii) This Court in Canon India (supra) based its judgment on two grounds: (1) the show cause notices issued by the DRI officers were invalid for want of jurisdiction; and (2) the show cause notices were issued after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period. In the present judgment, we have only considered and reviewed the decision in Canon India (supra) to the extent that it pertains to the first ground, that is, the jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue show cause notices under Section 28. We clarify that the observations made by this Court in Canon India (supra) on the aspect of limitation have neither been considered nor reviewed by way of this decision. Thus, this decision will not disturb the findings of this Court in Canon India (supra) insofar as the issue of limitation is concerned. (iv) The Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex (supra) observed that Section 28 (11) could not be said to have cured the defect pointed out in Sayed Ali (supra) as the possibility of chaos and confusion would continue to subsist despite the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r class of officers, on the ground of want of jurisdiction for not being the proper officer, which remain pending before various forums, shall now be dealt with in the following manner: a. Where the show cause notices issued under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 have been challenged before the High Courts directly by way of a writ petition, the respective High Court shall dispose of such writ petitions in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and restore such notices for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. b. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the respective High Court and appeals have been preferred against such orders which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and the show cause notices impugned therein shall be restored for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. c. Where the orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 28 have been challenged before the High Courts on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, the respective High Court shall grant eight weeks time to the respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
