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 emphasizes statutory appellate remedies, dismisses writ petitions challenging Order-in-Original. Follow procedures, respect institutions.</h1> <h3>M/s. Sri Sathya Jewellery, M/s. G.R. Thangamaligai (Firm), M/s. Shree Vigneshkumar Jewellers, Shri. N.S. Chengalvarayan, Partner, M/s. Sri Vasavi Gold & Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Shri. P. Seetharam (Erstwhile Director), M/s. Royal India Gems and Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Shri K. Umapathy, Chairman, M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery Limited, M/s. Jaipur Gems, M/s. International Exim Agency, Mr. A.M. Mariappan, Proprietor, Shri. Sandeep Surana, formerly Executive Director, M/s. G.R. Thangamaligai & Sons, Shri G. Rajendran, Shri G.R. Radhakrishnan, Shri G.R. Padmanabhan, Shri. Mithun Sacheti, M/s. Starfire Gems Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Surana Corporation Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, The Joint Commissioner of Customs</h3> M/s. Sri Sathya Jewellery, M/s. G.R. Thangamaligai (Firm), M/s. Shree Vigneshkumar Jewellers, Shri. N.S. Chengalvarayan, Partner, M/s. Sri Vasavi Gold & ... Issues Involved:1. Competency and jurisdiction of the authority issuing the show cause notice.2. Requirement to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy before approaching the High Court.3. Legal principles concerning the separation of powers and judicial review.Detailed Analysis:Competency and Jurisdiction of the Authority:The petitioners challenged the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicatory authorities, arguing that the show cause notice was issued by an incompetent authority lacking jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962. They contended that only 'The Proper Officer' as defined under the Act is empowered to issue such notices. The petitioners relied on Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, which specifies that the proper officer must serve notice for recovery of duties not levied or paid due to collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. They argued that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was not the proper authority as per the statute. The petitioners supported their argument by citing the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s. Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, which held that the DRI did not have the authority to issue such notices.Requirement to Exhaust the Statutory Appellate Remedy:The respondents objected, stating that the petitioners had not exhausted the statutory appellate remedies under Sections 128 and 129 of the Customs Act. They argued that the writ petitions were filed to avoid the pre-deposit requirement under the statute. The respondents pointed out that the Supreme Court's decision in the Canon India case was rendered in a regular appeal after exhausting statutory remedies, unlike the present writ petitions. The respondents emphasized that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions in a routine manner, bypassing the appellate process.Legal Principles Concerning the Separation of Powers and Judicial Review:The court reiterated the importance of exhausting statutory appellate remedies before invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted that the High Court's role is limited to ensuring that statutory processes and procedural aspects are followed by the competent authorities. The court stressed that it cannot usurp the powers of the appellate authorities by adjudicating the merits of the case based on documents and evidence, which is the domain of the appellate authorities.The court also discussed the principle of separation of powers, emphasizing that judicial review should not interfere with the executive's statutory powers unless there are exceptional circumstances. It cited several Supreme Court judgments to underline that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions if an effective alternative remedy is available. The court noted that jurisdictional errors should not result in exoneration of liability but should be rectified by remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioners must exhaust the appellate remedy provided under the Customs Act. It directed the petitioners to file appeals within 60 days, and the appellate authorities were instructed to entertain these appeals without reference to the limitation period and adjudicate them on merits. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court emphasized the need to follow statutory procedures to ensure justice and maintain institutional respect.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
