TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition could be entertained at the stage of a show cause notice on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and mala fides. (ii) Whether foreign liquor moved under a customs bonded warehouse to warehouse transfer, covered by customs permissions and a customs seal, could be subjected to action under the Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964.
Issue (i): Whether a writ petition could be entertained at the stage of a show cause notice on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and mala fides.
Analysis: Ordinarily, a writ court does not interfere at the stage of a show cause notice. The settled exception is where the notice is shown prima facie to be without jurisdiction, an abuse of process, or issued with premeditation or a closed mind. Where the impugned notice itself discloses a jurisdictional error, the Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the notice could be examined on merits.
Issue (ii): Whether foreign liquor moved under a customs bonded warehouse to warehouse transfer, covered by customs permissions and a customs seal, could be subjected to action under the Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964.
Analysis: The goods were moved pursuant to customs warehousing arrangements, supported by the requisite customs permissions, bond, transfer form and one-time seal. Under the Customs Act, 1962, warehoused goods remain under customs control until they cross the customs barriers on clearance. The statutory scheme under Section 73A of the Customs Act, 1962 and Regulation 3 of the Warehoused Goods (Removal) Regulations, 2016 showed that the movement was governed by customs law and not by excise control. The Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964 applies to import of excisable articles and foreign liquor only where the statutory conditions for import into the State are attracted. On the facts, the excise authorities had no jurisdiction to treat the consignment as goods imported into the State for the purposes of that Act.
Conclusion: The show cause notice was without jurisdiction and unsustainable, and the action under the Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964 could not be maintained against the consignment.
Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed, the impugned show cause notice was quashed, and consequential relief was granted in relation to the seized goods.
Ratio Decidendi: Warehoused goods transferred under valid customs control remain subject to customs law until clearance from the customs regime, and a State excise authority cannot assume jurisdiction over such goods in the absence of a legally cognizable import into the State under the excise statute.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
