Karnataka High Court
M/S Strides Pharma Science Ltd vs Union Of India on 2 February, 2023
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
WP No. 541 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 541 OF 2023 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
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.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANIRUDHA R NAYAK.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally
signed by THE REVENUE SECRATARY,
NARASIMHA
MURTHY MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
VANAMALA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Location:
HIGH NEW DELHI-110001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
FOREIGN TRADE
VANIJYA BHAVAN, H-WING,
GATE NO.2, MAULANA AZAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110001.
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL.
-2-
WP No. 541 of 2023
3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
OF CUSTOMS
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF CUSTOMS,
IMPORT COMMISSIONERATE,
CUSTOM HOUSE NO.60,
RAJAJI SALAI
CHENNAI-60001.
4. 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.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF CUSTOMS
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL
COMMISSIONER
OF CUSTOMS (CHENNAI-VII)
MEENAMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI-600027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUMAR M N.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)
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.1263/22-
23/COMMR/CAC/JNCH DATED 28.10.2022 VIDE ANNX-
E AND DIN NO.20221173MU0000333BAF, DATED
21.11.2022 VIDE ANNX-F ; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
AUTHORITIES TO KEEP THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES IN
-3-
WP No. 541 of 2023
NOS.CUS/APR/SCN/243/2022-GR-2, DATED
21.10.2022 VIDE ANNX-D, NO.1263/22-
23/COMMR/CAC/JNCH DATED 28.10.2022 VIDE ANNX-
E 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.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
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 sought for the following reliefs:
"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.1263/22-
23/Commr/CAC/JNCH dated 28.10.2022, enclosed as Annexure E and DIN No. 20221173MU0000333BAF, dated 21.11.2022, enclosed as Annexure F;-4- WP No. 541 of 2023
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.1263/22-
23/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."
Sri. Anirudha R Nayak, the learned counsel for 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 -5- WP No. 541 of 2023 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.
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, -6- WP No. 541 of 2023 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.
As such, the petition stands disposed of with liberty as aforesaid.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-