The central legal point established in the judgment is that DRI officers are not proper officers under the Customs Act, and their show cause notices lack jurisdiction and are ab initio void, as established by the judgment of Canon India Private Ltd.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petitions, the show cause notice (SCN) issued by officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, 'Act' of 1962), are challenged. In the instant matters D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5928/2021 is taken as lead case and 5980/2021, 5981/2021 and 5984/2021 as connected matters, as cause and controversy in the matters are identical.

2. The contention of petitioners is that in the light of Apex Court judgment rendered by Larger Bench titled as M/s Canon India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in AIR 2021 SC 1699, it has been held that officers of DRI are not "proper officers" to initiate proceedings by way of issuance of show cause notice, raising demand/confiscation under Section 28 and 124 of the Act of 1962 and the subsequent proceedings thereto are without jurisdiction and ultra vires to the Act of 1962.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Customs House Agent and the co-petitioners were importers engaged in the import of Glass Chatons at Customs ports at Jaipur. One investigation was conducted by Additional Director, DRI (Zonal) Unit Ahmedabad, in connected matter by DRI, Jaipur who after the investigation demanded custom duty under Section 28 of the Act of 1962 and proposed confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty under Section 124, 112, 114A of the Act, 1962. The show cause notice was issued as back as dated 06.08.2014 and in connected matter in 2019.

4. Is is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said show cause notice was adjudicated vide order dated 15.03.2021 in violation of principles of natural justice without grant of right to cross-examination, without consideration of Apex Court judgment in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed AM & Anr. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 537 and Cannon India Private Ltd (supra), wherein it has been held that DRI Officers are not proper officers and show cause notice issued by them are ab initio void, illegal and lacks jurisdiction and non- consideration of the above judgments is in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Similar controversy was raised in the bunch of writ petition referred above that the show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Act of 1962, by the DRI Officers is without jurisdiction.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Kinshuk Jain representing the respondents has submitted that the present writ petitions are not maintainable as order in original is passed and appeal has been filed by the petitioners. As per him, it is a settled position of law that where an alternative remedy is available, the writ petition is not maintainable. As per his submission, subsequent to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of M/s Canon India Private Ltd (supra), a number of writ petitions were filed before various High Courts for quashing of show cause notices issued by DRI Officers in which directions have been given to first approach Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue of jurisdiction. He further submitted that judgment of Canon India Private Ltd (supra), is distinguishable as the present matter pertains to Section 124 of the Act of 1962 qua the confiscation of goods whereas the Apex Court judgment pertains to provisions of Section 28 of the Act of 1962 for recovery of demand. In support of his contentions he has relied upon various High Court judgments wherein the concerned High Courts have directed the respondents to decide the same in accordance with law considering the judgment of Apex Court in Canon India Private Ltd (supra). In writ petition No.2582/2021 titled as Vaneesh Sachdeva Vs. Union of India of Bombay High Court, Rajesh Ved Prakash Vs. ADG RWP No. 19126-28/2021 etc.

6. We have considered the submissions made by respective counsels for the petitioners as well as for the respondent-Department, scanned the record of writ petition and analyzed the judgments cited at Bar.

7. Before addressing the issue on meri