Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 601 - MADRAS HIGH COURTJurisdiction of impugned order - Section 28-AAA of the Customs Act, 1962 - The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent has arbitrarily impleaded the petitioner as a party to the proceedings without any investigation or enquiry and therefore, continuance of the proceedings under the impugned notice will result in oppression and harassment to the petitioner - Held that: - The question as to whether there has been any allegation against the petitioner made by the exporters or not and whether the petitioner has acted bonafidely in having purchased scrips from the exporters are all questions of fact which can be agitated only before the adjudicating authority and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether Section 28 or Section 28-AAA would stand attracted, is also not a pure question of law, but involves adjudication into facts. Therefore, at this juncture, this Court does not propose to interfere with the impugned show-cause notice as if it is done, it would be doing so at the very threshold, which is impermissible - The petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunity to place all the materials and it is well open to the petitioner to raise the legal issues which according to them, are wholly in their favour, and also contest the jurisdictional point before the adjudicating authority by submitting a reply. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and quash the show-cause notice at the very threshold. Petition dismissed being not maintainable.
|