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>Writ Petition Challenging Show Cause Notice Not Maintainable Due to Estoppel and Jurisdictional Participation</h1> <h3>Pankaj Ispat Limited, through Managing Director, Pankaj Agrawal & Pankaj Agrawal, S/o Shri Lalit Kumar Agrawal Versus Union of India, Through the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Raipur</h3> Pankaj Ispat Limited, through Managing Director, Pankaj Agrawal & Pankaj Agrawal, S/o Shri Lalit Kumar Agrawal Versus Union of India, Through the ... ISSUES: Whether a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944 is maintainable before the High Court at the stage of issuance of such notice.Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A / sub-section (4) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be invoked without establishing fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty.Whether the show cause notice issued beyond one year but within five years under Section 11A(4) is valid when the petitioner has deposited part of the disputed duty amount and contends applicability of Sections 11A(5), 11A(6), and 11A(7) limiting the period to one year.Whether participation by the petitioner in the proceedings (including cross-examination of witnesses and seeking documents) amounts to submission to jurisdiction and precludes challenge to the validity or jurisdiction of the show cause notice.Whether the allegation of prejudgment of the issue by the revenue authority justifies quashing the show cause notice. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The writ petition challenging the show cause notice is maintainable only if the notice is 'apparently without jurisdiction and without authority of law,' as the High Court has power to issue prerogative writs to prevent 'lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment' when conditions precedent for issuance of the notice do not exist.The extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Act applies exclusively in cases involving 'fraud, collusion, or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,' and absent such ingredients, invocation of the extended period is without authority.Where a petitioner has deposited part of the duty amount and claims applicability of Sections 11A(5), 11A(6), and 11A(7), the limitation period for issuance of the show cause notice is one year; however, adjudication of this issue involves disputed questions of fact not amenable to determination at the writ stage.Participation in proceedings by requesting and availing cross-examination of witnesses and seeking documents constitutes submission to the jurisdiction of the authority and estops the petitioner from subsequently challenging the jurisdiction or validity of the show cause notice.The allegation that the revenue authority has 'prejudged the issue' is untenable where the petitioner has delayed challenging the notice and actively participated in the inquiry, and such a ground cannot be raised as an afterthought to evade a valid notice. RATIONALE: The Court applied the principle established in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer and subsequent Supreme Court precedents, holding that High Courts may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash notices issued without jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary harassment, but will not ordinarily interfere with the merits or reappraisal of evidence at the notice stage.The Court relied on statutory interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, emphasizing that the extended limitation period under sub-section (4) is conditional upon the presence of fraud or intent to evade duty, consistent with the legislative scheme and judicial precedents including Godrej Food Ltd. v. Union of India.Participation in proceedings, including cross-examination of witnesses and document exchange, was held to constitute submission to jurisdiction, invoking the doctrine that a party cannot accept the benefits of a proceeding and simultaneously challenge its jurisdiction, as supported by precedents such as Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service.The Court recognized that disputed factual questions concerning limitation and intent to evade duty are to be adjudicated by the competent authority through due process, and not in writ proceedings at the notice stage.The Court rejected the claim of prejudgment as an afterthought, noting the petitioners' delay and active engagement in the inquiry, thereby precluding relief on that ground.
TaxTMI 