Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesBombay High Court Quashes DRI Notice Sought To Be Adjudicated After 8...

Bombay High Court Quashes DRI Notice Sought To Be Adjudicated After 8 Years

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Bombay High Court has quashed the notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) which was sought to be adjudicated after 8 years.

The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that Section 28(9) of the Customs Act provides for determination of the amount of duty or interest within 6 months or 1 year from the date of notice as the case may be with further extension of the same period and subject to the conditions. Therefore, Section 28(9) of the Customs Act imposes an express bar in passing the order. 

Background

The petitioner/assessee, carries on business as a sole proprietor in the name of style of “Global Marking”. The petitioner is in the business of import and export of saffron. A show cause notice was issued to assessee by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to show cause why import duty foregone amounting to Rs.3,66,360/- should not be demanded under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest under Section 28AA/AB.

The petitioner replied giving detailed written submissions as to why the SCN should be dropped. Petitioner also requested for a personal hearing. For almost 3 years, no steps were taken for adjudication of the SCN. 

The Petitioner was informed that the Commissioner of Customs has been appointed as Adjudicating Authority for adjudication of the SCN. Petitioner was informed that he has not replied to the SCN. Pursuant to the intimation, Petitioner informed the customs commissioner that he has already replied to SCN.

However, Petitioner sought adjournment since he was not in town on that day. Thereafter, Respondents did not take any steps for adjudication of the impugned SCN and after almost more than 4 years and after almost 8 years from the date of the SCN, again a personal hearing was fixed on 13th December 2022.

The Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 10th March 2015 issued by Respondent No.4-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which is now sought to be adjudicated after a period of almost 8 years.

Read More: Prescription Of Onerous Conditions For Provisional Release Of Goods By Customs Dept. Is Not Sustainable: Delhi High Court

Arguments

The assessee contended that the department has not adjudicated the Show Cause Notice for almost 8 years and, therefore, the SCN is required to be set aside. 

The department contended that there is no statutory bar to adjudicate the matter even after the lapse of 9 years after the issue of Show Cause Notice.

Conclusion

The court while allowing the petition held that if order is not passed within time provided under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act then the notice would be justified in believing that Show Cause Notice has been dropped.

Case Title: Bhushan Vora Versus The Union of India

Case No.: Writ Petition No.389 Of 2023

Date: 10/09/2024

Counsel For Petitioner:  Prakash Shah

Counsel For Respondent: P. M. Sharma 

Read Order

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Senior Citizen’s Relocation, Changed Contact Details Justify 1,580-Day Appeal Delay: ITAT Orders Fresh Assessment

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a delay...

Can GST Input Tax Credit Be Denied Despite GSTR-2B Entry And Business Use? Understanding S. 17(5)

A genuine purchase, a valid tax invoice and use in business do not always...

School Pillar Collapse: Mere Failure To Supervise Construction Cannot Sustain Criminal Case Against Administrators, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the president and superintendent of a...

Foreign Divorce On Irretrievable Breakdown Cannot Shield Husband From Bigamy Proceedings: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has refused to quash bigamy proceedings against a husband who obtained...

More like this

Senior Citizen’s Relocation, Changed Contact Details Justify 1,580-Day Appeal Delay: ITAT Orders Fresh Assessment

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a delay...

Can GST Input Tax Credit Be Denied Despite GSTR-2B Entry And Business Use? Understanding S. 17(5)

A genuine purchase, a valid tax invoice and use in business do not always...

School Pillar Collapse: Mere Failure To Supervise Construction Cannot Sustain Criminal Case Against Administrators, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the president and superintendent of a...