TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 2029
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 2.00 crores has been imposed on the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made an endorsement that he is concerned only with the levy of penalty on the petitioner and that he is not questioning the other parts of the impugned order. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition as not maintainable in view of the availability of the appeal remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals) Cantonment, Trichy. The learned standing counsel also contested the petitioner's case on merits. 4. The officers attached to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit intercepted the Nissan Micra Car bearing Registration No.TN 07 BQ 8485 on 22.02.2017 at 08.25 Hr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ima facie indicated that the seized gold bars were liable for confiscation and the persons involved in the operations were liable to be levied with penalty, the second respondent issued show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The notice was issued to 7 persons including the petitioner herein. The show cause notice enclosed the list of documents relied upon. The said list included inter alia, the statements of K.Gandhi, V.Pandi, Smt.M.Jaleela and J.Rahumankhan. 7. The petitioner herein submitted his reply dated 23.10.2017 through his counsel. The petitioner in his reply pointed out that the statements obtained from K.Gandhi, A.Sowkath Ali and S.Maheswaran have since been retracted. The petitioner completely denied his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (State of Kerala v. K.T.Shaduli). 9. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner has no right of cross examination as demanded by him. In this regard, the learned standing counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CUS.AA.Nos.29, 32 to 38 of 2011 (Sudhir Sharma & Others vs. Commissioner of Customs & Others) and the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in WP.No.5917 of 2017 dated 31.10.2017. The defence projected by the standing counsel rests on three premises. He would call upon this Court to straight away non suit the petitioner by relegating him to avail the al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition straight away by bye-passing the statutory remedies that are available to the assessee/petitioner herein. 13. But, then the question is whether such an infringement has been established in this case. No doubt, there is lapse on the part of the first respondent in not passing an order negativing the request of the petitioner as and when it was made. If a request for cross examination of witnesses or supply of certain document is made, the authority is obliged to dispose of the said request then and there. If a request for adjournment is made again it will have to be dealt with then and there. It is not proper on the part of the authority to receive applications making such a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efusal has resulted in failure of proper hearing. Therefore, principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this, persons who had given information should be allowed to be cross- examined by the co-noticees on the statements made before the customs authorities. If cross-examination is to be allowed as a matter of right then in all cases of conspiracy and joint dealings between the co-noticees in the commission of the offences in connection with the contraband goods, they can bring about a situation of failure of natural justice by a joint strategic effort such co-noticees by each one refusing to be cross-examined by resorting to Article 20(3) of the Constitution and simultaneously claiming cross-examination of the other c....