Disposed

M/S Strides Pharma Science Ltd. v. Union of India

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2023WP/541/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Karnataka High Court disposed of a matter seeking relief under Customs Act show cause notices related to adjudication. The court held that the petition must be disposed of leaving the question of deferment to the adjudicating authority given undisputed willingness to consider the request.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to apply for further remedy if adjudication proceeds after termination of Supreme Court challenge.

M/S Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Vs Union of India — Customs and Excise | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 541 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 541 OF 2023 (T-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD COMPANY REGISTER UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT STRIDES HOUSE, BILEKAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560076 REP BY M.PRADEEP, MANAGER.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ANIRUDHA R NAYAK.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRATARY,

¶15

MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶16

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE VANIJYA BHAVAN, H-WING, GATE NO.2, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 541 of 2023

¶20

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, IMPORT COMMISSIONERATE, CUSTOM HOUSE NO.60, RAJAJI SALAI CHENNAI-60001.

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NS-I, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CUSTOM HOUSE, NHAVA SHEVA, TALUKA URAN, DIST RAIGAD NAVI MUMBAI-400707.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (CHENNAI-VII) MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600027.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. KUMAR M N.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3, 4 AND 5 NOT TO INSIST ON ADJUDICATION OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICES IN NOS.CUS/APR/SCN/243/2022-GR 2, DATED 21.10.2022 VIDE ANNX-D, NO.1263/2223/COMMR/CAC/JNCH DATED 28.10.2022 VIDE ANNXE AND DIN NO.20221173MU0000333BAF, DATED 21.11.2022 VIDE ANNX-F ; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO KEEP THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES IN

¶26

¶27

WP No. 541 of 2023

¶28

NOS.CUS/APR/SCN/243/2022-GR-2, DATED 21.10.2022 VIDE ANNX-D, NO.1263/2223/COMMR/CAC/JNCH DATED 28.10.2022 VIDE ANNXE AND DIN NO.20221173MU0000333BAF, DATED 21.11.2022 VIDE ANNX-F IN THE CALL BOOK TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE CASE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioner, who is issued with the Show Cause Notice [as per Annexures-D, E and F] under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, has

¶32

sought for the following reliefs:

¶33

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent nos. 3, 4, & 5 not to insist on adjudication of Show Cause Notices in Nos CUS/APR/SCN/243/2022-GR 2, dated 21.10.2022, enclosed as Annexure D, No.1263/2223/Commr/CAC/JNCH dated 28.10.2022, enclosed as Annexure E and DIN No. 20221173MU0000333BAF, dated 21.11.2022, enclosed as Annexure F;

¶34

¶35

WP No. 541 of 2023

¶36

b. Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus by directing the Respondent authorities to keep the Show Cause Notices in Nos. CUS/APR/SCN/243/2022-GR 2, dated 21.10.2022, enclosed as Annexure-D, No.1263/2223/Commr/CAC/JNCH dated 28.10.2022, enclosed as Annexure E and DIN No. 20221173MU0000333BAE, dated 21.11.2022, enclosed as Annexure F in the call book till the disposal of the case by the Hon’ble supreme Court of India.”

¶37

Sri. Anirudha R Nayak, the learned counsel for

¶38

the petitioner, Sri. Kumar M N, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, the learned counsel for the third to fifth respondents are heard for final disposal in the light of the submissions by Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi that the petitioner is justified in contending that the reason for the impugned Show Cause Notice would not

¶39

¶40

WP No. 541 of 2023

¶41

survive because of the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in ‘Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd., v. Union of India’ reported in 2019 [368] ELT 337 [Guj.]. However, the Department has called this order in question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same is pending consideration; if the petitioner were to place the same request with the adjudicating authority for deferring the proceedings, the request would be considered. As against these submissions, Sri. Kumar M N submits that the petitioner may not be in a position to place complete reliance on the afore decision in Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd., v. Union of India because of certain factual difference.

¶42

Sri. Anirudha R Nayak submits that apart from the above ground, the petitioner has also urged other grounds which would render the impugned Notices untenable in law and if the petition is disposed of in the light of the submissions by Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi,

¶43

¶44

WP No. 541 of 2023

¶45

that could foreclose the petitioner’s grounds. These submissions are considered in the light of the petitioner’s request which is only for deferment of the proceedings, and this Court is of the considered view that when it is undisputed that this request would be considered by the adjudicating authority, the petition must be disposed of leaving open the question of deferment to be considered by the adjudicating authority without prejudice to the petitioner’s rights to avail remedy as permissible in law in the event either there is no deferment or there is continuation of the proceedings after the termination of the Department’s challenge to the decision of the High Court of Gujarat.

¶46

As such, the petition stands disposed of with liberty as aforesaid.

¶47

AN/-

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

M/S Strides Pharma Science Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Strides Pharma Science Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Thimmanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B K Varadaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt M Nagarathna Vs State of Karnataka

H.Govindappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sree Nandi Granites Vs Joint Commissioner of GST (Appeals)

Btkoppal Thammaiahppa Shadaksharappa Vs the Union of India