Disposed

Vaneesh Sachdeva v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2021WP/2582/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petition challenging an impugned show cause notice issued by Director of Revenue Intelligence relying on a recent Supreme Court decision granting liberty to approach authority to quash proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach respondent no. 2 to urge proceedings cannot be carried further; writ petition disposed without costs.

Vaneesh Sachdeva Vs Union of India and Ors. — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

13.WP2582_2021

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2582 OF 2021

¶5

Vaneesh Sachdeva .. Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vikram Choudhari, Senior Advocate i/b. Ms. Neha Ahuja for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Senior Advocate for the respondent-UOI.

¶10

CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J.

¶11

Date :- July 8, 2021.

¶12

PC :

¶13

This writ petition dated June 1, 2021 is directed against a show cause notice dated February 3, 2020 issued by the respondent no. 2, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. We are informed that by the time the writ petition was presented, the petitioner had responded to the show cause notice and has even been heard by the respondent no. 2; however, the proceedings await the final order to be passed to terminate it.

¶14

The ground on which the show cause notice has been challenged in this writ petition is that the Supreme Court has passed a judgment and order dated March 9, 2021, reported in 2021 SCC Online 200 (Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs) , which essentially has the effect of taking away the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2 to issue a show cause notice.

¶15

1/2

¶16

13.WP2582_2021

¶17

We need not examine this point at this stage, since the final order on the proceedings is awaited. In our view, interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the petitioner is granted liberty to file an application before the respondent no. 2, to urge before such respondent that in view of the ratio of the decision in Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. ( supra ) the proceedings cannot be carried further. If such an application is made, the respondent no. 2 will proceed to decide the same in accordance with law either by a preliminary order or by the final order in the proceedings. We hope and trust that till Monday next, the final order on the proceedings shall not be passed by the respondent no. 2, thereby rendering the liberty granted by this order infructuous.

¶18

The writ petition stands disposed of, without costs.

¶19

All contentions raised in the writ petition are left open.

¶20

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶21

2/2

Vaneesh Sachdeva v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaneesh Sachdeva v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Sheth and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Invent Assets Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt.Ltd Vs the Official Liquidator, of M/S.Ggt Kaypee Limited and Anr.

The Mumbai Fresh Fish Dealers Association (Regd.) Vs Asagar Abbas Shaikh and 2 Ors.

Kishorchandra Kalyanji Agri LLP Vs Union (through the Secretary) Ministry of Law and Justice, Dept. of Legal Affairs. and Ors.

Agricas LLP Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Dept. of Legal Affairs and Ors.

M/S Jaychem Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Director General Nagpur Zonal Unit and Ors.