TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Company under section 124 read with section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter "the Act", for short). It was alleged therein that the Company had indulged in fraudulent export of polyester fabrics and duty-free import of Polyester Filament Yarn and other items under D.E.E.C. Scheme in contravention of the provisions of the Act. In course of investigation preceding such show-cause notice, a raid had been conducted at the premises of the Company on 9th August 1995. The second and the third petitioners having been arrested, it is alleged by them that they were compelled to pay an amount of Rs. 68 lakh on 10th August 1995. It is further alleged that only after such payment, the Department agreed not to oppose their prayers for bail and consequently, the second and the third petitioners were released on bail by an order dated 10th August 1995 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. On subsequent occasions too, the petitioners claim to have further been forced to pay Rs. 32 lakh and Rs. 1 crore. The said show-cause notice, inter alia, sought to recover the sum of Rs. 2 crore, which the petitioners allege they were compelled to deposit, and adjust the same aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is accordingly set aside and quashed. 29. The petition is allowed as above. However, there shall be no order as to costs." 7. Mr. Shroff submitted that when a period of 13 years was not considered reasonable, close to two decades and a half cannot also be considered reasonable. Accordingly, it is contended by him that since the proceedings have not been taken to its logical conclusion within a reasonable period of time, the petitioners are entitled to relief as claimed. 8. An affidavit-in-reply of the respondents is on record, affirmed on 16th February 2021. Paragraph 9 of the affidavit reveals that "nothing is found on records as to why the Show Cause Notice is pending for adjudication"; however, according to the deponent, one of the reasons for such pendency could be want of verification from the DGFT, Mumbai with regard to cancellation of the licenses. It has also been pleaded therein that the respondents noticed the Import Export Code (IEC No.0391165275) of the Company being under suspension and that these aspects having been ascertained from the DDFT, Mumbai, a request has been made to provide the present status of the impugned license on 15th January 2021, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amount of Rs. 2 crores against their duty liability under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962." 10. Taking advantage of a typographical error in prayer clause (d) of the writ petition, which has since been corrected by the petitioners by amending the said clause, the respondents have pleaded eagerness to adjudicate the impugned show-cause notice within such time and on such terms and conditions, as may be imposed by this Court. 11. Mr. Pradeep Jetly, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, relied upon the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply to contend that although the proceedings arising from the showcause notice have not been taken to its logical conclusion by the time the writ petition was instituted, the respondents may be granted liberty to conclude the proceedings upon consideration of the reasons assigned in the affidavit-in-reply. 12. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties. We have perused the pleadings on record and considered the decision cited by Mr. Shroff. 13. Having noted the so-called reasons assigned in the affidavit-in-reply of the respondents for not concluding the proceedings arising out of the impugned show-caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this distance of time, to agree with Mr. Jetly that the respondents should be granted liberty to conclude the proceedings. It is the petitioners who have approached the Court to have the impugned show-cause notice set aside. Had the petitioners not invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the show-cause notice would have continued to gather dust. The petitioners, in such circumstances, cannot possibly be worse off for seeking a Constitutional remedy and thereby suffer an order to facilitate conclusion of the proceedings which, because of the inordinate delay in its conclusion, is most likely to work out prejudice to them. 16. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is an admonition to the State against arbitrary action. The State action in this case is such that arbitrariness is writ large, thereby incurring the wrath of such article. It is a settled principle of law that when there is violation of a Fundamental Right, no prejudice even is required to be demonstrated. 17. Having bestowed due consideration to all relevant aspects, we are constrained to set aside the show-cause notice dated 30th April 1997 and all proceedings following the same. It is ordered accordingly. ....