TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he has received smuggled gold of foreign origin being carried by two persons, who were travelling in a Train from Kolkata to Bilaspur and upon secret information, they were intercepted, however, only one person was caught hold by the team of Officials and other person, namely Ranjit Samanta could not be intercepted. The intercepted person namely Satinath Dhara was caught and handed over to the Officers of DRI. One gold bar approximately 1 kg. was recovered from the possession of Satinath Dhara. A notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 for personal search before Gazetted Officer was issued to Satinath Dhara and thereafter, search and seizure was conducted in accordance with law. On the basis of information given by Satinath Dhara, search was conducted at the premises of Ashok Bera i.e. M/s. Ankita Gold Workshop, however, no one from the said premises was could be caught hold. From the information received from the accused persons and other connected persons, it was found that as per tax invoice No.SB-17948 dated 20.11.2021 issued by M/s. Sahlei Jeweleras of Shop No. 126,127 Aakash Ganga, Supela Bhilai, Fine Gold amounting to Rs. 50,52,150/- has been sold to M/s. Ankita Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a bill in the normal course of its business in the name of M/s. Ankita Workshop dated 20.11.2021, wherein the purity is mentioned as 995 which was a bona fide mistake not corrected by the accountant of the petitioner in printed invoice No. SB-17948 dated 20.11.2021 and the same was submitted by the petitioner on 13.06.2022, in which the purity is recorded 999. It has been further contended that there is no material even with the seizure of 1898 grams from the premises of M/s. Ankita Gold Workshop and the said charge is totally not sustainable as per law. It has been submitted that there is no reason for the petitioner to go through the trials and tribulations and ordeal of adjudication proceedings likely to be conducted by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Indore. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was also arrested by the authorities concerned. From perusal of the notice, the involvement of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned, in spite of that, notice is being issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has categorically submitted that according to business term between he and M/s. Ankita Gold Workshop, the petitioner has issued a bill in a normal way of busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thers, (2002) 10 SCC 444, Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani, (2013) 14 SCC 661 as well as judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the matters of Veer Bhadra Singh v. Union of India and others decided on 27.06.2019 in WPT No.94/2019 and M/s R.K. Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others decided on 26.06.2019 in WPT No.22/2019, to buttress his submissions. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioner has rushed to the Court only on issuance of show-cause notice, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed at this stage as the petitioner can freely agitate his grievance before the authority before whom he has been given the opportunity of hearing and instead of placing the grievance before the Authority, he has come to the Court with this petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the documents annexed along with writ petitions. 8. Perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition, it goes to show that primarily the show-cause n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration of the preliminary submission. On the contrary, the subject show-cause notice gives an opportunity to rebut the allegations before Authority to prove their innocence which is also in conformity with the ratio of Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Para 28 of the said judgment is relevant here and quoted below:- "28. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge sheet, cannot instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusion of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceeding become an idle ceremony." 12. Further in the light of the ratio laid down in case of AVM Studio v. The Union of India (UOI) and others passed in W.A. Nos. 104 & 105 of 2008 and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2008 decided on 11.03.2008, the activities of the petitioner has been discussed in the show-cause notice. When the opportunity of heari....