w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Asian Food Industries v/s Union of India & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- T T G INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209TN1987PLC014169

Company & Directors' Information:- V I P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L25200MH1968PLC013914

Company & Directors' Information:- A L M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14100DL1996PLC129067

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17121MH1991PLC257750

Company & Directors' Information:- S R INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L29246PB1989PLC009531

Company & Directors' Information:- F E INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36100PB2003PTC026482

Company & Directors' Information:- N K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L91110GJ1987PLC009905

Company & Directors' Information:- T S I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101HR1997PTC034478

Company & Directors' Information:- B L A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U10200MH1964PTC162314

Company & Directors' Information:- H G I INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40200WB1944PLC011754

Company & Directors' Information:- R P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100GJ2011PTC075812

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1974PLC007169

Company & Directors' Information:- A G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27300HR1991PTC031378

Company & Directors' Information:- H. J. INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120GJ2010PTC060769

Company & Directors' Information:- G R S INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000PB2005PLC029159

Company & Directors' Information:- T S L INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65999WB1994PLC065255

Company & Directors' Information:- M F B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31401TN1989PLC018274

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA FOOD COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15133MH2006PTC161188

Company & Directors' Information:- V S P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ2005PTC011820

Company & Directors' Information:- M N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100TG2012PTC079737

Company & Directors' Information:- G I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312PB2010PTC033806

Company & Directors' Information:- E T C INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31200MP1995PLC009281

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045572

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V E INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ2006PLC012577

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21010MH1992PLC068885

Company & Directors' Information:- N G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1994PLC065937

Company & Directors' Information:- S L INDUSTRIES P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U15331WB1989PTC047543

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L51909AS1985PLC002332

Company & Directors' Information:- T R A T INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199KL1996PLC010148

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC067120

Company & Directors' Information:- N M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175664

Company & Directors' Information:- S N L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17115RJ1994PTC008053

Company & Directors' Information:- J V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057081

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27101HR1995PTC032569

Company & Directors' Information:- D V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049221

Company & Directors' Information:- C D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1996PLC101277

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2014PTC096387

Company & Directors' Information:- G S M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02001DL2002PTC117443

Company & Directors' Information:- B G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U26921ML1980PLC001830

Company & Directors' Information:- P K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900DL2012PTC241654

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U91110GJ1994PTC022025

Company & Directors' Information:- L C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122UP2013PTC055697

Company & Directors' Information:- G. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15435MH2005PTC151817

Company & Directors' Information:- P A S INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active in Progress] CIN = U17121TZ2005PTC012171

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039251

Company & Directors' Information:- M K J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19111UP1989PTC010468

Company & Directors' Information:- S S F INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190BR1988PLC003160

Company & Directors' Information:- P B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MP1994PTC008840

Company & Directors' Information:- R & M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24297TN1972PTC006185

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U21012WB1977PLC030854

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17117DL1995PTC064137

Company & Directors' Information:- M C INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U27106WB1993PLC058995

Company & Directors' Information:- D R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100WB2011PTC160058

Company & Directors' Information:- R. L. F. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1983PLC015262

Company & Directors' Information:- U K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24241WB1988PTC044355

Company & Directors' Information:- M G I INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27310GJ2006PTC048707

Company & Directors' Information:- A D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC131561

Company & Directors' Information:- V J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253KA2009PTC050226

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PLC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PTC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- G R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB1996PTC018671

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15549WB2008PTC130116

Company & Directors' Information:- R S V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399MH2008PTC180489

Company & Directors' Information:- K. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14220JH2008PTC013409

Company & Directors' Information:- D K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202CH1994PLC014627

Company & Directors' Information:- D G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U36942WB1946PTC013526

Company & Directors' Information:- R I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1993PTC052678

Company & Directors' Information:- I S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29100GJ2009PTC057308

Company & Directors' Information:- B M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17000MH1997PTC109621

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ1995PTC006398

Company & Directors' Information:- B N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120AS1994PTC004273

Company & Directors' Information:- O. S. FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15119DL2006PTC152903

Company & Directors' Information:- A J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2004PTC145040

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01549TZ1997PTC007927

Company & Directors' Information:- K K S K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19201TZ1997PTC007687

Company & Directors' Information:- C R I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29120TZ2002PTC010129

Company & Directors' Information:- A C T INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018724

Company & Directors' Information:- G B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29220PN2011PTC139883

Company & Directors' Information:- S D B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MP1996PLC010394

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31300CT2008PTC020916

Company & Directors' Information:- A C INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29299WB2006PTC109474

Company & Directors' Information:- K M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC043295

Company & Directors' Information:- C J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25209MH1998PTC116707

Company & Directors' Information:- N P INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15549PB1989PLC009426

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29141MP2008PTC020731

Company & Directors' Information:- I K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100MH2010PTC199474

Company & Directors' Information:- H. D. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310MH2011PTC216080

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. G. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26960DL2008PTC182480

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28999DL2008PTC177248

Company & Directors' Information:- H & H INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34100DL2010PTC204604

Company & Directors' Information:- M J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15203KA2011PTC060675

Company & Directors' Information:- B R V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301UP1995PTC018704

Company & Directors' Information:- A. G. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25201UP1994PLC017291

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15204AS1993PLC003930

Company & Directors' Information:- I P M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25200DL1995PLC068554

Company & Directors' Information:- M R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900UP2008PTC036443

Company & Directors' Information:- R D I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1995PTC065508

Company & Directors' Information:- J G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L15141WB1983PLC035931

Company & Directors' Information:- V G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15139JK2015PTC004570

Company & Directors' Information:- S N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29211UP1951PTC002319

Company & Directors' Information:- T F FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122MH2012PTC232222

Company & Directors' Information:- ASIAN INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U25199WB1984PTC038269

Company & Directors' Information:- K G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29130WB1951PTC019868

Company & Directors' Information:- N S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74120UP2012PTC053986

Company & Directors' Information:- W W I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29300MH1997PTC112589

Company & Directors' Information:- D U INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29230GJ2016PTC091588

Company & Directors' Information:- S R P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U00061BR1984PLC002023

Company & Directors' Information:- C P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29303MP1949PTC000846

Company & Directors' Information:- J B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2013PTC245506

Company & Directors' Information:- S J V INDUSTRIES LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U15421WB1982PLC035521

Company & Directors' Information:- V V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1980PTC010427

Company & Directors' Information:- K K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65100DL1982PTC013046

Company & Directors' Information:- A T C INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109AS1984PLC002201

Company & Directors' Information:- N V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1953PTC020952

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31908AS1987PTC002804

Company & Directors' Information:- L K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291MH2012PTC233546

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U92114DL1956PTC002616

Company & Directors' Information:- G G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320UP1969PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- K S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31909MH1960PTC011707

Company & Directors' Information:- P L FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC021305

Company & Directors' Information:- P R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U21014DL1971PTC005738

Company & Directors' Information:- R K I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29190DL2012PTC233413

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25202AS1988PTC003132

Company & Directors' Information:- S G R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25199WB1948PTC016397

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190KA2012PTC062367

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19115UP2012PTC051151

Company & Directors' Information:- E S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN2012PTC086119

Company & Directors' Information:- I B INDUSTRIES LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28992WB1990PLC050469

Company & Directors' Information:- V I INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36934WB1951PLC019890

Company & Directors' Information:- J M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05002UP1952PTC002456

Company & Directors' Information:- L F INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291UP2015PTC068602

Company & Directors' Information:- A K S INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27201WB1946PTC013433

Company & Directors' Information:- V M V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26990GJ2013PTC076945

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U29248PN1948PLC001948

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20232AS1980PTC001853

Company & Directors' Information:- V N R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21090AP2012PTC081525

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011764

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- G I P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52605MH2015PTC263962

Company & Directors' Information:- C. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109RJ2014PTC045306

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2014PTC254820

Company & Directors' Information:- S. B. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PN2012PTC144181

Company & Directors' Information:- R K D FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC253447

Company & Directors' Information:- A & P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36935TG2014PTC095781

Company & Directors' Information:- S G L FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120UP2013PTC057688

Company & Directors' Information:- C & N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40200TG2014PTC095187

Company & Directors' Information:- B S B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2013PTC088059

Company & Directors' Information:- R A R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2016PTC103684

Company & Directors' Information:- K S A B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2012PTC181903

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36100JK2013PTC003808

Company & Directors' Information:- R D M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100DL2013PTC252294

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100KA2012PTC066761

Company & Directors' Information:- S V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27104WB1960PTC024715

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

Company & Directors' Information:- T & M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1956PLC002904

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51109BR1946PTC000228

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1946PTC005438

    R. Special Civil Application No. 17710 of 2016

    Decided On, 20 February 2020

    At, High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. BRAHMBHATT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G. URAIZEE

    For the Petitioner: Darshan M. Varandani (7357), Amrita M. Thakore (3208), Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, Devang Vyas (2794), R1, Nikunt K. Raval (5558), R3, Sudhir M. Mehta (2058), Advocates.



Judgment Text


Cav Judgment:

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.

1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers.

"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Notification No. 44/2011 Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.2 at Annexure C hereto and the show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 issued by the respondent no.3 at Annexure D hereto ;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay and suspend the operation and implementation of the Notification No.44/2011 Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.2 at Annexure C hereto and the show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 issued by the respondent no.3 at Annexure D hereto;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondent no.4 from proceeding further in regard to the adjudication of the demands raised by way of the show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 issued by the respondent no.3 at Annexure D hereto.

(D) Ex parte ad interim relief in terms of para C and D above be granted.

(E) Such other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be granted."

Thus, what is essentially under challenge is the Notification No.44/2011 Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.2 and the show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 issued by the respondent no.3.

3. The facts in brief as could be culled out from the memo of the petition and annexures deserve to be set out as under in order to appreciate the controversy.

3.1 The petitioner no.1 is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in the business of import and trading of watermelon seeds. The petitioner no.2 is a partner of the petitioner. That during the period from 2009 to 2013, the petitioner had imported watermelon seeds through Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhavasheva, Maharashtra on numerous occasions and had filed various Bills of Entry in respect of the same declaring the value thereof, which Bills of Entry were duly assessed by the customs authorities at Nhavasheva at the time of clearance. The respondent no.3, an authority in the Ahmedabad Zonal Unit of the DRI by certain investigations conducted and statements recorded in 2014, issued a show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 to the petitioners proposing redetermination of the value of the goods thus imported under the provisions of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and imposition of so called differential customs duty amounting to Rs.5,61,89,613/ as also interest and penalty, and also proposing confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111 of the Act. By virtue of the said notice the petitioners were called upon to show cause to the respondent no.4. The petitioner has made voluntary payment of Rs.1,00,00,000/ in August 2014, which is noted in the show cause notice.

3.2 The petitioner filed detailed reply dated 11th February 2015 on merits, along with documents before the respondent no.4, disputing the allegations made in the said show cause notice. The petitioner at that time not aware of the legal position and controversy regarding jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue show cause notice and therefore its reply did not contain the issue of jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 to issue the show cause notice. The petitioner recently came to know of an instruction dated 29th June 2016 issued by the respondent no.2 mentioning that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had passed an order dated 3rd May 2016 holding that Section 28(11) cannot validate show cause notices or proceedings pursuant thereto in relation to non levy, short levy or erroneous refund for the period prior to 8th April 2011 if such show cause notices are issued by officers who are not proper officers as per Section 2 (34) of the Act and further mentioning that the respondent no.2 had decided to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the said order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The respondent no.2 has instructed field formations to transfer all the show cause notices issued by DRI and such other authorities prior to 6th July 2011 to the Call Book till disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court. The respondent no.2 has directed that such show cause notices be kept in abeyance till disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court. The petitioner raising the issue of jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 to issue the show cause notice and inviting attention to the said instruction issued by the respondent no.2, wrote a letter dated 27th September 2016 to the respondent no.4 and requested to keep the matter in abeyance till the issue is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. To which the respondent no.4 orally informed the petitioners that he would not keep the matter pending till the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and would proceed with the matter on merits on the next date of hearing i.e. 11th November 2016.

3.3 The present case involves an issue of law as regards the jurisdiction of the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notice under Section 28 and other provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act"). The power to issue show cause notice on account of short recovery, non recovery or erroneously refunded duties, is provided under Section 28 of the Act and it is only the proper officer who is empowered to issue a show cause notice and to adjudicate the same under the said provision and some of the other provisions also empower only the proper officer to perform certain functions. The terms proper officer is defined in Section 2(34) which is as under : Section 2 (34) : "proper officer", in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board of the Principal Commissioner of Customs of Customs.

From time to time notifications have been issued with regard to assigning specific functions to various customs officer, which includes functions under Section 28 of the Act and with regard to territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction.

3.4 The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4(1) of the Act, has appointed various officers of DRI as Customs Officers, but as per Section 2(34) of the Act, the Customs Officers were not designated as "proper officer". However, by virtue of their appointments as Customs Officers, they were issuing show cause notices under Section 28 of the Act. This led a litigation to Supreme Court challenging the jurisdiction of such Customs Officers to issue show cause notices. However, in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Saiyed Ali, reported in 2011 (3) SCC 537, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held that "From a conjoint reading of Sections 2 (34) and 28 of the Act, it is manifest that only such a Customs Officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment of duty in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been effected, by either the Board of the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2(34) of the Act is competent to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act."

3.5 Pursuant to this, Section 28 of the Act was amended, Explanation 2 to the amended Section 28 reads as under : "Explanation 2 : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any non levy, short levy or erroneous refund before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 28 as it stood immediately before the date on which such assent is received."

3.6 Thereafter, another Act, being the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 was enacted which introduced a new sub section (11) to Section 28 w.e.f. 6th July 2011 and the said sub section (11) reads as under : "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 an always had the power of assessment under section 17 and shall be deemed to have and always had been proper officers for the purpose of this section."

3.7 The respondent no.2 issued notification dated 6th July 2011 assigning the functions of the proper officer to the Additional Director Generals, Additional Directors or Joint Directors or Assistant Directors in the DRI for the purpose of Sections 17, 28 and 28AAA of the Act. However, the said notification did not provide for the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the persons appointed therein as proper officers.

3.8 The synopsis of dates and events as averred in the petition, are required to be reproduced in verbatim as under :

DATE EVENT

- The power to issue show cause notice on account of short recovery, non recovery or erroneously refunded duties under Section 28 of the Act is conferred only the "proper officer". Likewise, some of the other provisions of the Act and rules made there under also empower only the "proper officer" to perform certain functions. The term "proper officer" is defined in Section 2(34):

Section 2(34) : "proper officer", in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs.

- The petitioner understands that notifications have been issued from time to time in regard to assigning specific functions to various officers of customs, including functions under Section 28 of the Act. Moreover, from time to time, notifications are issued in regard to territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction. 07.03.2002 From time to time, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4(1) of the Act, has appointed various officers of DRI as Customs Officers. The last such notification is Notification No.17/2002 Cus (N.T.) dated 7.3.2002. By virtue of such notifications, various officers of DRI were being appointed as Customs Officers under Section 4 of the Act but were not designated as "proper officers" as per Section 2(34) of the Act.

- However, by virtue of their appointment as Customs Officers, they and other persons appointed as Customs Officers by way of such other notifications were issuing show cause notices under Section 28 of the Act. This led to various litigations challenging the jurisdiction of such Customs Officers to issue show cause notices, which litigation travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

18.02.2011 By a judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali, reported in 2011 (3) SCC 537, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held that "From a conjoint reading of Sections 2(34) and 28 of the Act, it is manifest that only such a Customs Officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment of duty in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been effected, by either the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2(34) of the Act is competent to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act."

08.04.2011 Pursuant to this, Section 28 of the Act was amended by way of the Finance Act, 2011.

The amended Section 28 still provided that it is the "proper officer" who is empowered to issue a show cause notice and to adjudicate the same under the said provision.

Explanation 2 to the amended Section 28 reads as under :

Explanation 2: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any non levy, short levy or erroneous refund before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 28 as it stood immediately before the date on which such assent is received.

06.07.2011 The respondent no.2 issued Notification No.44/2011 Cus (N.T.) assigning the functions of the "proper officer" inter alia to the Additional Director Generals, Additional Directors or Joint Directors or Assistant Directors in the DRI for the purpose of Sections 17, 28 and 28AAA of the Act. The said notification however did not provide for the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the persons appointed therein as "proper officers" for the purposes of Sections 17, 28 and 28AAA of the Act.

06.09.2011 Shortly thereafter, the Customs (Amendment and Validation Act, 2911 was enacted which introduced a new sub section (11) to Section 28 with effect from 06.09.2011 and the same reds as under :

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 and always had been proper officers for the purposes of this section.

07.11.2014 Pursuant to certain investigations conducted and statements recorded in 2014, the respondent no.3, an authority in the Ahmedabad Zonal Unit of the DRI, issued a show cause notice dated 7.11.2014 upon the petitioners inter alia proposing redetermination, under the provisions of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 of the value of goods imported by the petitioner no.1 during the period from 2009 to 2013 through Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhavasheva, Maharashtra and imposition of so called differential customs duty amounting to Rs.5,61,89,613/ as also interest and penalty. The show cause notice also proposed confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111 of the Act. The petitioners were called upon to show cause to the respondent no.4.

11.02.215 The petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 11.02.2015 on merits, along with documents, disputing the allegations made in the said show cause notice, which was filed before the respondent no.4. At that time, the petitioner was not aware of the legal position and controversy regarding jurisdiction of the DRI officers and therefore, its reply did not contain the issue of jurisdiction of the ........

4. Thus, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Notification No.44/2011 Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.2, the present petition is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the petition.

5. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the impugned Notification No.44/2011 Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.2 does not provide for or specify the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the persons designated therein as proper officers for the purposes of Sections 17, 28 and 28AAA of the Act and is therefore, patently arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional, de hors and violative of the provisions of law, vague, without application of mind, invalid and illegal inter alia since :

(i) A notification conferring certain powers upon certain officers must be in regard to certain specific areas and cannot be vague as to the area of their jurisdiction.

(ii) The powers/jurisdiction to be exercised under Sections 17 and 28 of the Act pertain to assessment and reassessment of customs duty payable on imported goods and therefore, involve an adjudicatory function which must be subject to territorial limits of jurisdiction.

(iii) The powers/jurisdiction conferred by Section 28 of the Act involve satisfaction on the basis of material that customs duty has not been levied or is short levied or erroneously refunded, which power/jurisdiction, by its very nature, requires territorial limits of jurisdiction.

(iv) The provisions of Section 28 of the Act can only be conferred on or available to officers in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been effected and any other reading of relevant provisions of law would lead to a situation of utter chaos and confusion inasmuch as any Customs Officer across the country can exercise powers under Section 28 of the Act in respect of any goods imported anywhere in the country. Any other interpretation would mean that over broad and untrammeled powers have been conferred upon such persons without any territorial limits and would result in a chaotic situation where any officer can exercise powers under Sections 17 and 28 in respect of any import anywhere in the country and may also result in multiplicity of litigations in respect of the same import.

(v) In case of the regular customs authorities which are exercising power under Sections 17, 28 the respondent no.2 itself provides for territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction and hence, it is patently arbitrary, highhanded and without application of mind to not provide for such territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction in regard to officers covered by the Notification No.44/2011 Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011,which has resulted in such officers exercising such powers/jurisdiction in respect of any and all areas.

(vi) The said notification is therefore, ex facie vague since it fails to provide for the territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction of the various persons who have been conferred powers under Section 28 thereunder and is issued without any application of mind.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that assuming without admitting that the Notification No.44/2011 Cus (N.T.) dated 6th July 2011 is not invalid for vagueness. It is further submitted that for the foregoing reasons, the various persons who have been conferred powers under Sections 17 and 28 of the Act there under cannot exercise such powers/jurisdiction unless and until such territorial limits or areas of jurisdiction are fixed. Any other interpretation would mean over broad and untrammeled powers having been conferred upon such persons without any territorial limits and would result in a chaotic situation where any officer can exercise powers under Sections 17 and 28 in respect of any import anywhere in the country and may also result in multiplicity of litigation in respect of the same import.

7. It is submitted that the impugned show cause dated 7th November 2014 is wholly without jurisdiction and void for the foregoing reasons since :

(i) Section 28 (11) of the Act does not state that it operates notwithstanding anything contained in the Act and is therefore subject to Explanation 2 to Section 28 which provides that non levy, short levy or erroneous refunded prior to the date on which Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 28 as it stood immediately prior thereto. Reading these provisions together, it is clear that the respondent no.3 has no jurisdiction to exercise any power under Section 28 in respect of or covering a period prior to 8th April 2011 since the respondent no.3 was not a proper officer at that time and there was no provision akin to Section 28(11) during that period whereby he could be considered as deemed to be a proper officer.

(ii) Section 28(11) cannot and does not validate show cause notices issued by the officers of DRI if it amounts to reopening of assessment of customs duty for a period prior to 8th April 2011.

(iii) The show cause notice proposes re determination of the value of the goods imported by the petitioner under Section 14(1) of the Act read with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), 2007 which is beyond the respondent no.3's powers/jurisdiction since he is not a proper officer for the purpose of the said provisions. Likewise, the show cause notice seeks to invoke other provisions of the Act such as Section 111 of the Act which is also beyond the respondent.3's powers/ jurisdiction since he is not a proper officer for the purpose of such provisions.

8. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notification and show cause notice are even otherwise unconstitutional, contrary to the statute, illegal and invalid. It is further submitted that the impugned show cause notice is based upon the ground that it is without jurisdiction and hence the alternative remedy is not at all efficacious. It is submitted that the petitioners have no other alternative efficacious remedy available to them under law in respect of the subject matter of the present petition and the reliefs sought herein, if granted, would be adequate.

9. As against this, Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.3, which reads as under :

"....3. Based on intelligence that import of watermelon seeds was being undervalued by the petitioner, as case was booked by DRI, Ahmedabad against the petitioner on 12th August 2014. Inquiry in the case was conducted and a show cause notice F.No.DRI/AZI/GI 02/ENQ(INT 09/14) 2014 dated 7th November 2014 was issued to the petitioner in respect of the imports made during 2009 to 2013 demanding customs duty amounting to Rs.5,61,89,613/ along with proposing penalty on the petitioner and its partner Shri Ajay Tehalyani.

4. The respondent no.3 seeks to make the following submission against the application made by the applicant before the Hon'ble Court.

4.1 The petitioner has challenged the legal validity of the show cause notice dated 7th November 2014 issued by the respondent no.3 on the ground that the same is ex facia and without jurisdiction and illegal, which is false and baseless in as much the by virtue of Notification no.17/2002 Cus (NT) dated 7th March 2002 issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Central Board of Excise and Customs has appointed the Additional Director General, DRI posted at Hqrs and Zonal/Regional unit to the Commissioner of Customs. Further the Jurisdictional area for the Additional Director General defined is also mentioned therein as the Whole of India. From the above Notification it is clear that the Additional Director General, DRI, has been appointed as the Commissioner of Customs for the Jurisdiction of the Whole of India. Hence, the point raised by the petitioner that the Additional Director General does not have Territorial Jurisdiction is totally false and baseless.

4.2 Further, as per Notification No.44/2011 Cus dated 6th July 2011 issued under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 the Board has assigned the functions of the proper officer to the Addl. Director General, DRI for the purpose of Section 17 and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue raised by the petitioner that territorial jurisdiction has not been assigned in the Notification no.44/2011 Cus dated 6th July 2011, also appears to a vague plea taken by them since section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, does not mandate that the territorial jurisdiction of the proper officer should be defined at the time of assigning the functions of the proper officer. The section 2(34) only speaks of assigning the functions to a customs officer by the board or the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs.

4.3 Subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated 18th February 2011 in the case of the Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali, reported in 2011(3) SCC 537, the Government of India vide Notification No.44/2011 Cus (NT) dated 6th July 2011 has assigned the functions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the Additional Director General, DRI. This effectively means that the powers under Section 17 and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be exercised by the Additional Director General, DRI. In the instant case, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7th November 2014 demanding customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 alongwith confiscation and penalties etc. Conjoint reading of both the said Notifications, effectively means that as on the date of issue of the said show cause notice i.e. 7th November 2014, the Additional Director General of DRI, had powers to function as a Commissioner of Customs for the territorial jurisdiction of the whole of India and as such the contention of the petitioner is totally false and baseless.

4.4 The petitioner at para no.10 has referred to an instruction dated 29th June 2016 and requested the adjudicating Authority to keep the case in call book. Since the issue of whether the case has to be kept in call book or otherwise has to be taken by the respondent no.4, and as such respondent no.3 has no comment to offer on it.

4.5 Further in the case of SCA No.2894 of 2013 filed in the case of (1) M/s. Swati Menthol & Allied Chemicals Ltd., Vs. Joint Director, DRI, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat vide order dated 8th January 2014 and (2) Writ Petition No.12153 of 2012 filed in the case of Sunil Gupta Vs. Union of India, Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai vide order dated 3rd November 2014 upheld the power of issue of show cause notice by DRI and it was decided that the SCNs issued by them were legal and issued well within jurisdiction.

5. Therefore, on the grounds mentioned hereinabove, the petition needs to be quashed and no relief be granted to the petitioner."

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the proceedings.

11. The petitioners have attempted to indicate that the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Saiyed Ali (supra) has not been clearly appreciated by the respondents inasmuch as the conferment of the jurisdiction upon the officer of DRI without there being a reference to the territorial jurisdiction would be leaving a room for rendering it vitiated. The impugned notices therefore, have been assailed on this account by the petitioners.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court's attention to the relevant paragraph in the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Saiyed Ali (supra) to support the contention that the jurisdiction to decide or issue notices sought to be conferred upon DRI Officer by nominating them or describing them proper officer for the purpose of investigation or examination without any reference to the territory would therefore, not cloth them with the power to issue notice.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the issue therefore, cannot be said to be not concluded on account of the notification produced on record with the affidavit in reply. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the affidavit in reply and the show cause notice and the accompanying documents would clearly indicate that the DRI officers were not lacking in jurisdiction, as right from the beginning the territory of India is referred to in the notification in question. The relevant portion of the affidavit in reply deserves to be set out in verbatim to appreciate the contention on behalf of the respondent for resisting the petition.

"...3.1 The petitioner in the instant application has not challenged the merits of the case instead prayed for the quashing of the Notification no.44/2011 Cus (NT) Dated 6.7.2011 on the grounds that the said Notification does not specify the territorial jurisdiction of the person designated therein as the proper officers for the purpose of section 17, 28 & 28AAA of the Act.

4.1 The petitioner has challenged the legal validity of the Show cause Notice dated 7.11.2014 issued by the respondent no.3 on the ground that the same is ex facia and without jurisdiction and illegal, which is false and baseless in as much by virtue of Notification no. 17/2002 Cus (NT) dated 7.3.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Board of Excise and Customs has appointed the Additional Director General, DRI posted at Hqrs and Zonal / Regional unit to the Commissioner of Customs. Further the Jurisdictional area for the Additional Director General defined is also mentioned therein as the Whole of India. From the above Notification it is clear that the Additional DIRector General, DRI, has been appointed as the Commissioner of Customs for the Jurisdiction of the Whole of India. Hence, the point raised by the petitioner that the Additional Director General does not have Territorial Jurisdiction is totally false and baseless.

4.2 Further, as per Notification No.44/2011 Cus dated 6.7.2011 issued under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Board has assigned the functions of the proper officer to the Additional Direcotr General, DRI for the purpose of Section 17 and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The issue raised by the petitioner that territorial jurisdiction has not been assigned in the Notification no.44/2011 Cus dated 6.7.2011, also appears to a vague plea taken by them since section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, does not mandate that the territorial jurisdiction of the "proper officer" should be defined at the time of as

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

signing the functions to a Customs Officer by the board or the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs. 4.3 Subsequent to the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated 18.2.2011 in the case of the Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali, reported in 2011(3) SCC 537, the Govt of India vide Notification No.44.2011 Cus (NT) dated 6.7.2011 has assigned the functions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 2961 to the Additional Director General, DRI. This effectively means that the powers under Section 17 and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be exercised by the Additional Director General, DRI. In the instant case the Show cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 7.11.2014 demanding Customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with confiscation and penalties etc. Conjoint reading of both the said Notifications, effectively means that as on the date of issue of the said Show cause Notice i.e. 7.11.2014, the Additional Director General of DRI, had powers to function as a Commissioner of Customs for the territorial jurisdiction of the whole of India and as such the contention of the petitioner is totally false and baseless." 14. The said affidavit in reply and the averments mentioned there under on oath have remained uncontroverted or undisputed. In that view of the matter, the question arises as to whether this Court would embark upon the examining of this aspect only when the show cause notice is under challenge. The show cause notice as per say if found without jurisdiction then, it goes without saying that this Court has power to or rather duty to embark upon the examination and pass appropriate direction as this would go to the root of the matter. In the instant case, the averments made on oath have remained to be controverter and when it is only a show cause notice, which could be answered properly and the adjudication if permitted would not prejudice the petitioner in any manner. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the show cause notice without rendering final opinion upon the aspect of the jurisdiction when prima facie appears to be not without any authority of law are required to be permitted to be proceeded with. 15. As a result thereof, the petitioners could be said to be having not made out a case for interference and the petition is required to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. It goes without saying that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of examining the controversy in question and the same have no bearing upon the right of the petitioners to take out all the submissions available under law while replying to the show cause notices and during the adjudication thereof. 16. With these observations, the present petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. A.G. URAIZEE, J. FURTHER ORDER: At this stage, Ms.Thakore, learned advocate for the petitioners urges the Court to continue the interim arrangement as the same has been continuing from quite some time. We are of the view that as the interim arrangement has been continuing from quite some time, therefore, it would be in fitness of things that interim arrangement be continued for the further period of six weeks from today.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

08-10-2020 C. Rajakumari & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Industries (MIA), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
11-09-2020 M/s. S.M. Cement Industries Rep. By One of Its Partners Namely, Manoj Sureka, Assam Versus Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 MS Industries & Spirits (P) Ltd. Versus M/s. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
25-08-2020 V. Ramanathan Versus The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 V. Yadunandan Yadav Versus The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Food & Civil Supply And Consumer Affairs, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2020 K. Manikkan, Railway Liason Officer, Malabar Cements Limited, Walayar Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary, Industries (H) Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 L. Ahmed Abdul Razack Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-08-2020 M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Dilawar Singh Rawat & Another High Court of Delhi
06-08-2020 Rajiv Bal Versus Harrison Industries, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Shailendra Singh Versus M/s. Vittal Cashew Industries, Represented by its Partner H. Ganesh Kamath & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-08-2020 R.V. Granites, rep. by its Managing Partner S. Padmavathi Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines.II) Department Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
03-08-2020 Devi Marine Food Export Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Abdul Razzak Ganj, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Jalgaon Golden Transport Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-07-2020 Gaurav Kumar Versus Food Corporation of India & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
21-07-2020 Anie Philip, Principal, Food Craft Institute, Kalamassery & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Tourism Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 N.M. Chandrashekar Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Rep. by its Authorised representative Goregaon Mumbai Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 S.R. Ganesan Versus The State rep., by its, Principal Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 M/s. Durga Fabrication Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Prakash Ramu Rathod Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Prakash Industries Limited. Versus Bengal Energy Limited. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-06-2020 Khaleed Pasha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries (MSME, Mines & Textile), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Tips Industries Ltd. Versus Entertainment Network (Kindia) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-05-2020 Aasha Devi Versus Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Ltd through its Managing Director, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 K. Madhusudhana Naidu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-05-2020 Ramnath Agrawal & Others Versus Food Corporation of India & Others Supreme Court of India
12-05-2020 Spentex Industries Ltd Versus Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP High Court of Delhi
05-05-2020 Mohamed Tanveer Versus The State of Karnataka by Addl. Chief Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-05-2020 Agricola Enterprises Ltd. & Another Versus Ministry for Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Versus M/s. Iceberg Industries Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Exide Industries Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 Lakshmi Sriniavasa Rice Mills, Rep. by its Partners, K. Kallappa Versus Lakshmi Srinivas Industries, Rep. by its Partners, T. Nageswara Rao, Raichur & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
23-03-2020 S. Satheesh Chandran Versus The State of Kerala Represented by The Secretary, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-03-2020 M/s. CJP Industries, Represented by its Managing Partner S. Julius Versus Amitha Bishnoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-03-2020 Food Corporation of India V/S Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 A Marine Industries Munambam, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Proprietor, P.T. Francis & Others Versus UCO Bank, Represented by The Chief Manager, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Peps Industries Private Limited Versus Kurlon Limited High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Sai Electromech Industries, A Sole Proprietary Concern rep.by Its Proprietor Umangkumar Joshi Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory S. Mahadevan High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-03-2020 M. Kulandaivel Versus The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Co-operation Food & Consumer Protection(CD2) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Food Corporation of India & Another Versus M/s. V.K. Traders & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Ballarpur Industries Limited & Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Forests, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 S. Arokiam Versus The Secretary to Government, Food, Cooperation & Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Electrosteel Steels Limited, Bokaro & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
04-03-2020 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalaym Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Bank of India V/S M/s. Brindavan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 M/s. Food Corporation of India, Represented by its Area Manager, Coimbatore Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation, Represented by its Deputy Director, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. Versus Videocon Industries Ltd. (Through) High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Labour-cum-Specified Authority & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 Kamal Encon Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-02-2020 M/s Century Rayon (A division of Century Textile & Industries Ltd.), Maharashtra V/S Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its, Chief Engineer (Commercial), Maharashtra And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
18-02-2020 Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Rajasthan & Others Versus Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited (Institution of Rajasthan Government) Through Managing Director, Ugyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Gail (India) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 Jose Mathew Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies (B) Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
10-02-2020 M/s. Tanfac Industries Limited, Rep. by its Secretary G. Balasubramanian Versus M/s. Orichem Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited V/S Laxmi Balaji Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
07-02-2020 M/s. S.K.J. Coke Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Coal India Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Andhra Bank V/S Suguna Industries Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
06-02-2020 K. Arumugham, Prop. Seetha Industries, Arakandanalu, Villupuram V/S The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments, Chennai And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 HDFC Bank Ltd. V/S JNK Electrical Industries Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
05-02-2020 P. Krishnan Versus The Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce (Industrial Co-operatives)/(District Registrar of Industrial Co-op), Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 D. Vasantha Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Commerce & Industries Department (MSME & Mines), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 B.H. Srinivasa Murthy Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 State Bank of India V/S Suvarnasari Venkateshwara Food Products and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Nagpur
05-02-2020 Sheo Shakti Cement Industries, Hazaribagh Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
04-02-2020 M/s. K.T.V. Health Food Private Limited Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Industries Department Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Punjab National Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-02-2020 Ishwar Oil Industries and Others. V/S The Authorized Officer, Dena Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
01-02-2020 Corporation Bank V/S Tara Health Food Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh
31-01-2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs Versus FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd. United Kingdom Supreme Court
29-01-2020 Vimal Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary/Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Authorised Signatory, New Delhi Versus M/s. Durga Bricks Industries, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-01-2020 M/s. Elgi Electric & Industries Limited, Rep. by General Manager, Coimbatore Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Trichy Road Assessment Circle, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Century Rayon (A Division of Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Maharashtra Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-01-2020 Vanessa Crasto Versus Central Public Information Officer Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. Central Information Commission