Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Rajinder Arora And Others Versus Union of India And Others

2016 (7) TMI 123 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Proper officer - Validity of Show cause notice issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue intelligence - Scope of Section 2(34) read with Section 17 and 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Amendment to Section 28, whether retrospective or prospective - Held that:- The retrospective application of Section 28 (11) is limited in time with use of the words “this section” read with the Explanation 2, which necessarily means reference only to the now existing Section 28 which was inse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] are mutatis mutandis applicable to the case of the present petitioners. Therefore, the impugned show cause notice dated 13.3.2005, the adjudication order dated 25.6.2010 and consequential recovery proceedings, are rendered non est and void ab initio on the vice of jurisdiction and are as such quashed and set aside. - Decided in favor of the assessee. - CWP No. 12678 of 2016 - Dated:- 30-6-2016 - M. Jeyapaul And A. B. Chaudhari, JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr. Harshit Se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the Adjudication Order dated 25.6.2010. This challenge is centered on the premises that the said Notice is issued by Respondent No. 2 Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue intelligence, Ludhiana, who is not a 'proper officer' in terms of Section 2(34) read with Section 17 and 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. They rely on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Sayed Ali, (2011) 3 SCC 537 and also the recent judgment dated 3.5.2016 of the Delh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal, and the writ petition can be finally disposed of. Since the issue raised is of jurisdiction to issue the notice itself, as per the settled law, the alternative remedy is not a bar and thus we are inclined to exercise the writ jurisdiction. 4. That while interpreting the scope and ambit of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 (as it existed prior to its substitution on 8.4.2011), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sayed Ali's case (supra) after analyzing the relevant provisions of the Act i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r Section 28 of the Act. Any other reading of Section 28 would render the provisions of Section 2 (34) of the Act otiose inasmuch as the test contemplated under Section 2 (34) of the Act is that of specific conferment of such functions. 21. Moreover, if the Revenue's contention that once territorial jurisdiction is conferred, the Collector of Customs (Preventive) becomes a 'proper officer' in terms of Section 28 of the Act is accepted, it would lead to a situation of utter chaos and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eared for home consumption, will have the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act. ..........We are convinced that Notification Nos. 250-Cus and 251-Cus. Both dated 27th August 1983, issued by the central government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 4 of the Act, appointing Collector of Customs (Preventive), etc. to be the Collector of Customs for Bombay, Thane and Kolaba Districts in the State of Maharashtra did not ipso facto confer jurisdic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ercised/discharged by them, but for the purpose of Section 28 of the Act, an officer of Customs has to be designated as 'proper officer' by assigning the function of levy and collection of duty, by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs. The argument of the Revenue was rejected accordingly. 6. Thereafter, on 8.4.2011, the Finance Act, 2011 received the assent of the President and was notified in the Official Gazette, which vide Clause 42 provided that for the earlier Section 28 of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rd assigning the functions to the specific officers of the Customs to enable him to act as 'proper officer' for various purposes under the Act is required, instructions were issued on 15.4.2011 by the CBEC to all officers of the Customs (Preventive) and DRI, inter alia, as under : 2. In view of Hon'ble Supreme Court order, while other alternative measures are being considered to address the matter, it has been decided by the Board that henceforth all show cause notices under Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

judgment in the matter. 3. As for the cases which would be hit by limitation if notices are issued afresh now, necessary legal options are being explored. 4. Difficulty faced, if any, may be brought to the notice of the Board. 8. On 6.7.2011, Notification No. 44 of 2011-Customs was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which thereby assigned the functions of the proper officer inter alia to the Additional Director Generals in the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence for the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tement of Objects and Reasons (SOR) referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sayed Ali (supra) and the said notification dated 6th July, 2011 specifically declaring certain officers as proper officers for the purposes of Sections 17 and 28. It was sought to clarify that Show Cause Notices issued inter alia by Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), for demanding customs duty not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded in respect of goods imported ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eads as under : (11) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court of law, tribunal or other authority, all persons appointed as officers of Customs under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 before the 6th day of July 2011 shall be deemed to have and always had the power of assessment under Section 17 and shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officers for the purposes of this Section. ......(emphasis ours) 11. The non-obstante cla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly and to validate anything done or any action taken under the said Act at all material times irrespective of issuance of any specific assignment on 6.7.2011. However, the retrospective application of Section 28 (11) is limited in time with use of the words this section read with the Explanation 2, which necessarily means reference only to the now existing Section 28 which was inserted w.e.f. 8.4.2011 after substitution of the earlier provision. Thus, retrospective applicability is only since 8. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, inter alia, the following conclusions:- 47. ....................In other words, the newly enacted Section 28 (11) would not empower the officers of the DRI and DGCEI to either proceed to adjudicate SCNs already issued by them for the period prior to 8th April 2011 or to issue SCNs for a period prior to 8th April 2011. 62. There is merit in the contention that Section 28 (11) is overbroad in as much as it confers jurisdiction on a plurality of officers on the same subject matter which would res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

construction. However, there cannot be a presumption of validity by reference to such SOR. (See Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Rangnath Mudholkar AIR 1963 SC 703 para 20). 66. The mere fact that Section 28(11) has been given retrospective effect does not solve the essential problem pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Sayed Ali case, which is the absence of the assigning of functions to 'proper officers' under Section 2(34) of the Act. The even more serious problem is the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

offee Ltd. v. Coffee Board (supra), the use of article 'the' as opposed to 'an' or 'any' is indeed significant. Only officers who have been assigned the functions of the 'proper officer' for the purposes of Section 17, i.e., assessment of the bills of entry can be considered as the proper officer for the purposes of Section 28(11) of the Act. As further explained in Shri Ishar Alloys Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (supra), the article 'the' always deno .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (supra) and the decision of the Supreme Court in India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. (supra) are relevant in this context. Conclusion on the effect and validity of Section 28 (11). 70.1 The net result of the above discussion is that the Department cannot seek to rely upon Section 28(11) of the Act as authorising the officers of the Customs, DRI, the DGCEI etc. to exercise powers in relation to non-levy, short-levy or erroneous ref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o that date and not the newly re-cast Section 28 of the Act. 70.2 Section 28(11) interpreted in the above terms would not suffer the vice of unconstitutionality. Else, it would grant wide powers of assessment and enforcement to a wide range of officers, not limited to customs officers, without any limits as to territorial and subject matter jurisdiction and in such event the provision would be vulnerable to being declared unconstitutional. 70.3 As regards the period subsequent to 8th April 2011, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version