ROYALOAK FURNITURE INDIA LLP Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner M/s. Royaloak Furniture India LLP., Bengaluru, has filed these writ petitions in this Court on 27.2.2017 assailing the show-cause noticecum- demand notice, Annexure-A, dated 6.1.2017, issued by the respondent-Additional Director General, Directorate Revenue Intelligence, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, to the petitioner in pursuance of the search operations carried out at the business place of the petitioner on 1.12.2015 and the petitioner has also challenged the provisions of sub-section (11) of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 ('Act' for short) inserted by the Customs (Amendment & Validation) Act, 2011, with effect from 16.9.2011.

(2.) The present writ petitions have been filed in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned show-cause notice Annexure-A, dated 6.1.2017 on the twin grounds of validity of provisions of the Act and also lack of jurisdiction of the respondent-Additional Director General to issue the said show-cause notice.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Raghuraman has submitted before the Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali, 2011 265 ELT 17 (S.C.) decided on 18.2.2011 had laid down that it is only the officers of customs, who are assigned the functions of assessment, working under the jurisdictional Collectorate within whose jurisdiction the bills of entry or baggage declarations has been filed and the consignments have been cleared for home consumption, will have the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act and therefore the authorities belonging to the Intelligence Wing, who are the authorities assigned the functions of preventing evasion of duty do not have the assessment of powers under the Customs Act.