IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ.
M/s. Bihar Foundry & Castings Ltd., through its Director Sri Gaurav Budhia - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (T) No. 5161 of 2022 with W.P. (T) No. 4340 of 2022
Decided On : 04-03-2024
CUSTOMS - CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - Sections 2(23), 2(26), 18(1), 28, 28AA, 28(9), 28(1)(a), 112(a), 125 - The court examined the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly focusing on Sections 28 and 28(9) regarding the limitation period for issuing show cause notices and the requirement for pre-notice consultation. The court emphasized that the mandatory six-month limitation period under Section 28(9)(a) was not adhered to, rendering the orders and notices issued beyond this period invalid. The interpretation of these sections was crucial in determining that the proceedings were void ab initio due to non-compliance with statutory requirements.
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since both these writ applications are inter connected and the issue involved is common; as such both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In writ application being W.P.(T) No. 5161 of 2022 the petitioner has made following prayers;
B. For issuance of writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), quashing and setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19-11-2018 bearing No. CC(P)/BBSR/CUS/No-16/Joint Commissioner/2018 passed by the Respondent No.4 which is at Annexure-"2" of this Petition and holding/declaring that the said impugned Order is bad in law as is passed ignoring the mandatory provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also that it is barred by limitation under Section 28(9)(a) ibid;
C. For issuance of writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), quashing and setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19-11-2018 bearing No. CC(P)/BBSR/CUS/No-17/Joint Commissioner/2018 passed by the Respondent No.4 which is at Annexure-"3" of this Petition and holding/declaring that the said impugned Order is bad in law as is passed ignoring the mandatory provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also that it is barred by limitation under Section 28(9)(a) ibid,
D. For issuance of writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), quashing and setting aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 20-04-2018 bearing C. No. VIII (10)11/SCN/BSIL/CUS(P)/BBSR/2018/8187A issued by the Respondent No.4 in respect of the Bill of Entry No.260/HC/2011- 12 Dated 20-03-2012, which is at Annexure-"4" of this Petition and holding/declaring that the said impugned Show Cause Notice is bad in law as is issued ignoring the mandatory provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and that it is barred by reasonable period of limitation;
E. For issuance of writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), quashing and setting aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 20-04-2018 bearing C. No. VIII(10)11/SCN/BSIL/CUS(P)/BBSR/2018/8189A issued by the Respondent No.4 in respect of the Bill of Entry No.261/HC/2011- 12 Dated 20-03-2012, which is at Annexure-"5" of this Petition and holding/declaring that the said impugned Show Cause Notice is bad in law as is issued ignoring the mandatory provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and is barred by reasonable period of limitation.”
3. In writ application being W.P.(T) No. 4340 of 2022 the petitioner has made following prayers;
B. For issuance of writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), quashing and setting aside the impugned Final Assessment Order dated 26.06.2021 bearing No. C. No. VIII(06)95/CUS/DMR/2012/Pt./04/1087 passed by the Respondent No.4 finally assessing the Bill of Entry No.158/HC/2012-13 Dated 17.07.2012, which is at Annexure-"2" of this Petition and holding that the finalization of provisional assessment in the instant case is barred by limitation and without jurisdiction;
C. For issuance of writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), quashing and setting
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Indian Oil Corporation, reported in 2004 (165) ELT 257 (SC)
K.B. Nagur, M.D. (Ayurvedic) Vs. UOI
Gupta Smelters Pvt. Ltd Vs UOI
The limitation period for issuing show cause notices under Section 28(9)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is mandatory, and failure to conduct pre-notice consultation renders the proceedings void.
Show cause notices issued prior to 29.03.2018 must be adjudicated within one year from that date; otherwise, they lapse.
Delayed adjudication attributable to the revenue violates procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the applicability of directives issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs under Section 28(9A)(c) of the Cust....
The court affirmed that the power under Section 28 of the Customs Act allows for the determination of duties without requiring prior verification of self-assessment under Section 17.
Proceedings under section 11A of Act are adjudicatory proceedings and authority which decides same is a quasi-judicial authority. Such proceedings are strictly governed by statutory provisions. Secti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.