https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760479 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760479 Correctness, legality and propriety of the inaction in bringing a logical end as per law to the detailed and credible information given by the Petitioner - seeking declaration that the SVB orders, and orders of assessment and clearance of goods for home consumption obtained by Respondent nos.5 to 7 pursuant thereto or otherwise under Sections 17, 18 (2) and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, having been obtained by the private Respondents 5 to 7 by material suppression - direction to Respondents to forthwith investigate the matter of continued massive undervaluation and mis-declaration of material particulars to evade customs duty in import of new Luxury Cars from such related parties - direction to official Respondents to inquire into the continued inaction by the concerned officer/s causing huge revenue loss. HELD THAT:- The Petitioner, who claims to be an informer, is seeking to bring before the Court information, which according to him, will be useful for the Customs Authorities and the Director of Revenue Intelligence in respect of import of cars in India. Once such a matter which involves technical expertise, the matters of import duties, the pricing across countries and various factors that go before international pricing, it is not possible for this Court in writ jurisdiction to arrive at determinative findings. Rights of the Respondents to pursue their statutory remedies also cannot be prejudiced. The statutory authorities were called upon to look into the information. Such course of action was adopted by the Hon ble Supreme Court when the Petitioner brought before them certain information. The Hon ble Supreme Court did not directly issue any specific direction to the private parties, but only called upon the statutory authorities to look into the information brought forth by the Petitioner - Pursuant to information supplied by the Petitioner in respect of the Respondent No. 5- Mercedes, the Director of Revenue Intelligence and the Customs Authorities have looked into the matter and have not found any violation. Even if they do, the methodology and procedure under the governing statute will have to be followed. The Petitioner, who claims to be an informer, has filed these proceedings himself against the private Respondents and the statutory authorities. The dispute between the private Respondent and the statutory authorities, if any, will be resolved through the mechanism provided under the governing statute. We are not inclined to grant any special status higher than that of an informer like any other citizen to the Petitioner. No case is made out of any collusion or mala fides on the part of the statutory authorities. Such collusion and mala fides cannot be casually intended and must be substantiated. Merely by raising suspicion about the merits of the stand taken by the Director of Revenue Intelligence and the Customs Authorities, directions cannot be issued against the private Respondents and the Director of Revenue Intelligence. If such casual assertions are accepted and the directions are given on the basis that the Director of Revenue Intelligence and the Customs Authorities, who are represented through the learned Additional Solicitor General, have colluded with the private Respondents, then it would be a serious matter on the part of these Respondents and their officers. Without any material, therefore, such observations and directions cannot be issued. It is clear that valuation and pricing of these cars is a complex matter and is governed by various factors. Therefore, the Special Valuation Cell is also set up which consists of experts. As regards the Petitioner s expertise in the subject, we have not been shown anything to demonstrate the same. Having called upon the Customs Authorities and the Director of Revenue Intelligence to look into the information supplied by the Petitioner, the matter cannot be taken forward in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, there are no material before us to reach a conclusion that the Director of Revenue Intelligence and the Customs Authorities have deliberately not looked into the information supplied by the Petitioner. This Court cannot in a writ jurisdiction give any direction in respect of future imports. The Petitioner himself as an informer cannot abuse the status granted by this Court to convert this litigation into a witch hunt against the private Respondents. Thus, on the basis of material supplied by the Petitioner, substantial investigation has taken place, substantial judicial time has been spent upon the same and the proceedings cannot go on merely because the Petitioner insists that they should go on - petition dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 16 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530