TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbodiri, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Jainish P. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners; Mr. Siddharth H. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent No.5; and Ms. Hetvi H. Sancheti, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs : "b. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/directions quashing the Show Cause Notice F. No. DRI/AZU/GI-02/Enq-39/2016 dated 28.10.2016 issued by Respondent No. 3 to Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and the proceedings initiated thereunder declaring the same as invalid and without the authority of la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 2018 in case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. has held that the respondent No. 3 would have jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under the provision of Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, the petition may be disposed of in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has held as under:- "168. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that: (i) DRI officers came to be appointed as the officers of customs vide Notification No. 19/90-Cus (N.T.) dated 26.04.1990 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification later came to be superseded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ali (supra) is misplaced for two reasons - first, Sayed Ali (supra) dealt with the case of officers of customs (Preventive), who, on the date of the decision in Sayed Ali (supra) were not empowered to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 unlike the officers of DRI; and secondly, the decision in Sayed Ali (supra) took into consideration Section 17 of the Act, 1962 as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2011. However, the assessment orders, in respect of which the show cause notices under challenge in Canon India (supra) were issued, were passed under Section 17 of the Act, 1962 as amended by the Finance Act, 2011. (iii) This Court in Canon India (supra) based its judgment on two grounds: (1) the sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice by a particular proper officer is issued. It could be said that this policy provides a sufficient safeguard against the apprehension of the issuance of multiple show cause notices to the same assessee under Section 28 of the Act, 1962. Further, the High Court could not have applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to harmonise Section 28 (11) with Explanation 2 because Section 28 (11) and Explanation 2 operate in two distinct fields and no inherent contradiction can be said to exist between the two. Therefore, we set aside the decision in Mangali Impex (supra) and approve the view taken by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Sunil Gupta (supra). (v) Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 which, inter-alia, retrospectively va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dispose of such writ petitions in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and restore such notices for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. b. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the respective High Court and appeals have been preferred against such orders which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and the show cause notices impugned therein shall be restored for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. c. Where the orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 28 have been challenged before the High Courts on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show....