TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are not entertaining a writ petition against the show cause notices and competent authorities and notices. The demand notices are issued based on initial determination made by the original authorities. A writ petition need not be entertained at this stage and High Court cannot adjudicate the issues relating to huge economic offence of stealthily procuring raw materials clandestine manufacturing and fraudulent supply of filter cigarettes of various brands during a particular period without payment of taxes, as alleged by the respondents resulting into issuance of show cause notices which were issued after conducting a detailed investigation in the matter by them. Even if the procedures are not followed by the authorities before issuance of show cause notices, they are bound to do so in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The interim order granted by this Court stands vacated. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the statutory alternative remedy in accordance with law, if so advised - Petition dismissed. - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari And Hon'ble Shri Justice Devnarayan Mishra For the Petitioner : Shri Manu Maheshwari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d can be removed only after the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise assesses the duty payable. Until and unless such goods are cleared by the respondent authorities, the goods cannot be moved out of the premises of the petitioner, therefore, there cannot be any tax evasion on the part of the petitioner. The respondents themselves monitored the actual production of cigarettes in the factory premises. Even the machines are sealed immediately after the working hours and de-sealed only in the morning by the Excise Officers themselves, therefore no possibility of evasion is ruled out. Without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the show cause notices have been issued which are without application of mind and, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, Shri V.R. Venkatraman, Additional Solicitor General vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the only ground raised by the petitioner in the petition is that the show cause notice and demand raised is only on the basis of production capacity. The quantification of demand and its rationale is a pure question of fact, which this Court under original jurisdiction, with respect cannot sit upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction or if an allegation of malafides are raised. Even in such case, the authority against whom such malafides is alleged, the authority has to be impleaded in his personal capacity. 11. The impugned demand notice has been issued by following the procedures contemplated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and a communication has been given to the person concerned. On receipt of any such demand, the person against whom such notice is issued, may either comply with the demand made or raise objections before the competent authority or appellate authority in case of any objections to the demand so made. In the event of objections, an adjudication is certainly warranted and such an adjudication must be done based on the documents and evidences available on record. However, such an elaborate adjudication cannot be done by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure whether the processes through which a decision is taken by the competent authority is in consonance with the Act and Rules or not, but not the decision itself. Thus, all disputed facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AIR2004 SC 1467], Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore[(2001) 10 SCC 639], State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma[(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , etc 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere chargesheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants also supports their case. In the aforesaid judgment, arising out of Central Excise Act, 1944, this Court has held that excise law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and held that entertaining writ petition is not proper where alternative remedy under statute is available. When there is a serious dispute with regard to classification of service, the respondents ought to have responded to the show cause notices by placing material in support of their stand but at the same time, there is no reason to approach the High Court questioning the very show cause notices. Further, as held by the High Court, it cannot be said that even from the contents of show cause notices there are no factual disputes. Further, the judgment of this Court in the case of Malladi Drugs Pharma Ltd. v. Union of India 5, relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants also supports their case where this Court has upheld the judgment of the High Court which refused to interfere at show cause notice stage. (v) The Apex Court in the case of Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2020) 12 SCC 808 , has held that : entertaining a writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
