[2025:RJ-JP:21378-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6701/2021 1. M/s Gnine Marmograni Impex Pvt. Ltd., A Company Registered Under The Companies Act Having Its Registered Office At C.p.2/220, IInd Floor, Connaught Palace, Sobhagpura, Udaipur-31001 Through Its Director Shri Dipesh Ajaria. 2. Shashi Shukla S/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Shukla, Aged About 33 Years, R/o House No.2, Behind Silver Spring Apartments, Near Manglam Apartments, Navratan Complex , Udaipur- 313001. 3. Dipesh Ajaria S/o Shri Navneet Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 1102, 14th Floor, Royal Rajvilas, Udaipur. (Director Of M/s Gnine Marmograni Impex Pvt. Ltd. And Proprietor Of M/s Paradise Creations, Udaipur) 4. Jai Prakash Sharma, S/o Shri Navneet Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 1102, 14Th Floor, Royal Rajvilas, Udaipur. 5. Rimpu Shukla, S/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Shukla, Aged About 34 Years, R/ O House No.2, Behind Silver Spring Apartments, Near Manglam Apartments, Navratan Complex , Udaipur- 313001. 6. Himanshu Kumawat, S/o Shri Naresh Kumawat, Aged About 29 Years, Ro/ 30 North Sundervas, Vidya Vihar Colony, Udaipur (Raj.). 7. Bharat Suhalka S/o Ratan Lal Suhalka, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 1216, Bhopa Mangri Sec-3, Udaipur (Raj.) Director Of M / S . Gnine Marmograni Impex Pvt. Ltd. (100 Percent Eou) 8. M/s Paradise Creations, Cp-2/220, Ii Floor, Cannaught Place, Shobhagpura, Udaipur Through Dipesh Ajaria, Partner. 9. M/s Heavenly Creations, Godown No 4, Sapetia Road, Behind Amar Jyoti Marbles, Sukher, Udaipur Through Meenakshi Bindra, Partner. 10. Vidushi Ajaria D/o Sh. Vishnu Koushik, Aged About 31 Years, Partner Of M/s Heavenly Creations, Godown No 4, Sapetia Road, Behind Amar Jyoti Marbles, Sukher, Udaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:21378-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-6701/2021] 11. Meera Shukla D/o Shri Ragav Nand Tripathi, Aged About 31 Years, Partner Of M/s Heavenly Creations, Godown No 4, Sapetia Road, Behind Amar Jyoti Marbles, Sukher, Udaipur. 12. Avni Shukla D/o Shri Shanti Lal Siroya, Aged About 29 Years, Partner Of M/s Heavenly Creations, Godown No 4, Sapetia Road, Behind Amar Jyoti Marbles, Sukher, Udaipur. 13. Meenakshi Bindra D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Bindra, Aged About 36 Years, Partner Of M/s Heavenly Creations, Godown No 4, Sapetia Road, Behind Amar Jyoti Marbles, Sukher, Udaipur. ----Petitioners Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur, N.c.r. Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 21/05/2025 1. This petition is filed challenging the show cause notice dated 29.03.2021, issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur. 2. By issuing notice of motion following order was passed:- “Heard. This petition is admitted for hearing. Reply has been filed by the respondent. An application has been filed seeking interim relief by the petitioners submitting that amongst various grounds which have been submitted by the petitioners, issue of jurisdiction has also been raised in this petition. [2025:RJ-JP:21378-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-6701/2021] Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this case has been admitted on the issue of jurisdiction. He would further submit that in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of 2021 SCC online SC 200 (Canon India Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs), particularly has been held in para 13 of that judgment, the authority who has issued notice in purported exercise of power under Section 28(4) of the Act, has no competence and jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the case of Canon India Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs is not applicable in the present case. Present is a case where notice has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur who has been empowered under the law to act as a proper officer. The issue requires consideration. However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, particularly what has been held in para 13 in the case of Canon India (supra), we are inclined to protect the petitioners in the manner and to the extent that though respondent may continue proceedings, no final order shall be passed in the case without leave of the court. List this matter for hearing in the month of April, 2022. All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue with regard to jurisdiction has been decided by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Canon India Private Limited reported in 2024 0 INSC 854, thereafter the Customs Act, 1962 has been amended. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amended Act shall not be applicable in the present case. [2025:RJ-JP:21378-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-6701/2021] 5. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise the issue of jurisdiction before the respondent within two weeks from today. 6. There is no doubt, in the eventuality of the petitioners filing objections within two weeks, the same shall be considered by the respondent in accordance with law expeditiously. Till the objection of jurisdiction is decided, the interim order passed by this court shall continue. 7. Needless to say, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the decision. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J DIKSHA MISHRA /110