TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes Show Cause Notices, emphasizes timely adjudication and jurisdictional clarity.</h1> <h3>M/s Harkaran Dass Vedpal Versus Union of India And Ors</h3> M/s Harkaran Dass Vedpal Versus Union of India And Ors - 2019 (368) E.L.T. 546 (P & H) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue Show Cause Notices.2. Limitation and delayed adjudication of the Show Cause Notices.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue Show Cause Notices:The petitioners, partnership firms importing non-edible oil, challenged the Show Cause Notices issued by the DRI on the grounds that the DRI officials were not 'proper officers' as per Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent DRI justified the issuance of the notices, stating that the functions of a proper officer had been assigned to DRI officials through the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011. Despite this, the court found that the DRI's jurisdiction to issue these notices was under question, especially since the Supreme Court had issued notices in related cases, indicating ongoing legal uncertainty.2. Limitation and delayed adjudication of the Show Cause Notices:The petitioners also argued that the Show Cause Notices were not adjudicated within a reasonable period, citing the amended Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates adjudication within one year from the date of notice, extendable by one more year under specific conditions. The court referenced its previous judgment in GPI Textiles Ltd. v. UOI, which quashed a Show Cause Notice under similar circumstances due to unreasonable delay. In the present case, the Show Cause Notices issued in 2009 remained unadjudicated for over ten years, far exceeding any reasonable period. The court emphasized that, as per the amended Section 28, the proper officer was bound to pass an order within one year from the date of the Show Cause Notice, or within an extended period if justified, which was not done here.Retroactive Application of Amended Section 28:The court applied the principle of retroactive amendment, treating the pending Show Cause Notices as if issued on 29/03/2018, the date when the amendment came into force. This meant that the respondents were required to adjudicate the notices by 28/03/2019, which they failed to do. The court cited previous judgments, including Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. State of Punjab, to support the retroactive application of procedural amendments, concluding that the notices had lapsed due to non-compliance with the amended provisions.Conclusion:The court allowed the petitions, quashing the Show Cause Notices dated 19/03/2009 and 20/02/2009, on both counts: the application of the GPI Textiles judgment and the retroactive application of the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision underscores the necessity for timely adjudication of Show Cause Notices and clarifies the jurisdictional authority of the DRI under the amended legal framework.
TaxTMI 