Petition Challenges DRI's Jurisdiction for Show Cause Notice; Court Orders Resolution in Three Months Citing Precedent.

The HC of Bombay admitted the petition challenging the DRI's jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice, referencing the SC's decision in M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs. The court instructed the Respondents to adjudicate the notice within three months, ensuring all the Petitioner's contentions are considered. The ruling underscores the necessity of following legal precedents and mandates a prompt resolution of the issue.

---

---

Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue a show cause notice challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based on the binding decision of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs AIR 2021 SC 1699.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of DRI to Issue Show Cause Notice
The petition challenges a show cause notice dated 8th January 2016 issued by the DRI, Lucknow Zone Unit, contending that the DRI lacks jurisdiction to issue the notice. The petitioner argues that this action by the DRI goes against the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs AIR 2021 SC 1699. The court, referring to previous similar cases, directs the Respondents to adjudicate the show cause notice expeditiously within three months, keeping all contentions of the Petitioner open for consideration during the adjudication process.

Key Phrases:
- Challenge to show cause notice jurisdiction
- Supreme Court precedent invoked
- Previous cases referred for context
- Adjudication directed within three months
- All contentions of Petitioner to be considered

Conclusion:
The High Court of Bombay admitted the petition challenging the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue a show cause notice based on the Supreme Court precedent. The court directed the Respondents to expedite the adjudication process while keeping all contentions of the Petitioner open for consideration. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal precedents and ensuring a timely resolution of the matter at hand.

---