TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of second respondent. 2.With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of. 3.Main writ petition has been filed assailing a 'show-cause notice' ('SCN' for brevity) dated 07.06.2019 bearing reference F.No.DRI/CRU/VIII/ 48/ENQ-01/INT-37/2018 (hereinafter 'impugned SCN' for brevity) issued by the first respondent. 4.There is a further limb of prayer which is for quashing Seizure Mahazar dated 12.12.2018 issued by the third respondent prior to the impugned SCN. To be noted, Seizure Mahazar is dated 12.12.2018. 5. Prior to the issue of impugned SCN, writ petitioner had approached this Court with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding provisional release shall be communicated to the writ petitioner under due acknowledgement within 7 working days from the date on which the order is made. d) Though obvious it is made clear that it is open to the writ petitioner to either reply to SCN or assail the same in a manner known to law and the order passed in this writ petition will not impede such proceedings.' 7. Four other paragraphs, which are of relevance, are Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which read as follows: '8. A perusal of Section 110 of the said Act reveals that respondents do have the powers to make such seizure. 9. On this primordial plea of the writ petitioner i.e, a plea that respondents do not have powers to seize being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reign origin gold even according to the mahazar, that the impugned SCN states that writ petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of 'The Customs Act, 1962' ('said Act' for brevity) and therefore has prejudged the issue. 9. In response to the aforesaid grounds of attack, it is submitted by learned Revenue counsel that the question as to whether it is foreign origin gold turns on facts and with regard to offence punishable under Section 135 of said Act, it is a matter which has to be tested as the adjudication progresses. 10. From the narrative thus far, this Court is left with the considered view that the instant writ petition being one assailing SCN, the scope is very narrow and limited. Grounds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been issued in complete violation of existing provision/s of law and that it tantamounts to re-opening a settled issue. To be noted, this is not an exhaustive list of grounds, but is illustrative to the extent that it is necessary to dispose of this case on hand. 14. In this regard, this Court reminds itself of Kunisetty Satyanarayana case [Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28]. Most relevant paragraphs are Paragraphs 15 and 16, which read as follows: '15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and ex....