1 2025:CGHC:44182-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 639 of 2025 Rajendra Kumar Jain S/o Shree Mohan Lal Jain Aged About 65 Years (At Present Aged About 68 Years) Proprietor Of M/s Saheli Jewellers , 126, 127 Aakash Ganga Supela, Bhilai Chhattisgarh, R/o 162 Aapapura, Bhoipara, Gandhi Chowk District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Her Joint Director , Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) , Government Of India, Indore Zonal Unit, 1st Floor, Bsnl Telephone Exchange Building, Transport Nagar Indore , District Indore Madhya Pradesh. 2 - Deputy Director Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, Government Of India, Raipur Regional Unit, 30, Panchsheel Nagar, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional / Joint Commissioner Of Customs B Zone , 3rd Floor, 12/27 And 12/28, Village Pipliyakumar, Nipania, Indore District Indore Madhya Pradesh. 452010. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vijay M. Advani, through V.C. along with Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 10:36:37 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.09.2025 1. The appellant/petitioner in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 3176 of 2022, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. 2. In WPC No. 3176 of 2022 the petitioner questioned the show- cause notice dated 18.06.2022 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Indore Zonal Unit (IZU), by which the petitioner was directed to submit reply to the show-cause notice alleging that he has received smuggled gold of foreign origin being carried by two persons, who were travelling in a Train from Kolkata to Bilaspur and upon secret information, they were intercepted, however, only one person was caught hold by the team of Officials and other person, namely Ranjit Samanta could not be intercepted. The intercepted person namely; Satinath Dhara was caught and handed over to the Officers of DRI. One gold bar approximately 1 kg. was recovered from the possession of Satinath Dhara. A notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 for personal search before Gazetted Officer was issued to 3 Satinath Dhara and thereafter, search and seizure was conducted in accordance with law. On the basis of information given by Satinath Dhara, search was conducted at the premises of Ashok Bera i.e. M/s. Ankita Gold Workshop, however, no one from the said premises was caught hold. From the information received from the accused persons and other connected persons, it was found that as per tax invoice No.SB-17948 dated 20.11.2021 issued by M/s. Sahlei Jewelers of Shop No.126,127 Aakash Ganga, Supela Bhilai, Fine Gold amounting to Rs.50,52,150/- has been sold to M/s. Ankita Gold Workshop, however, without there being any material, the petitioner is being noticed, which is per se illegal. According to the petitioner, the entire action taken by the authorities is in contravention with Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- 14. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that as of now the petitioner is challenging the show- cause notice by way of writ petition wherein undisputedly, the petitioner is having remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act and thereafter 4 further remedy of appeal under Section 129 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. All the grounds raised in this petition are available to the petitioner to be raised before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is competent to appreciate the technical grounds raised by the petitioner, therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the show cause notice under a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In the result, the writ petition at this stage is premature and liable to be dismissed for want of alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal. It is made clear that if the appeal is filed, any observation made herein-above shall not come in the way of the petitioner and Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal without being influenced by this order. 16. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed, with the observation and direction as stated above. 4. The writ appeal has been again filed by the appellant/ petitioner by reiterating the same plea praying for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and quashing the show cause notice. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner submits that the 5 respondent authorities with predetermined mindset have issued the show-cause notice dated 18.06.2022, giving definite conclusion of alleged guilt. He further submits that the petitioner has been wrongly charged in the said show-cause notice and asked to reply to the charges mentioned in para 12.1 (ii) (iv) and (v) as the said charges do not pertain to the petitioner in any manner. It has been contended that the petitioner supplied 1000 grams (1 Kg) gold of purity 995 to Mr. Ashok Bera of M/s. Ankita Gold Workshop and the said gold was seized by the DRI from the possession of one Mr. Satinath Dhara, who is working for M/s. Ankita gold Workshop. Thereafter, the petitioner had issued a bill in the normal course of its business in the name of M/s. Ankita Workshop dated 20.11.2021, wherein the purity is mentioned as 995 which was a bona fide mistake not corrected by the Accountant of the petitioner in printed invoice No.SB-17948 dated 20.11.2021 and the same was submitted by the petitioner on 13.06.2022, in which the purity is recorded 999. It has been further contended that there is no material even with the seizure of 1898 grams from the premises of M/s. Ankita Gold Workshop and the said charge is totally not sustainable as per law. It has been submitted that there is no reason for the petitioner to go through the trials and tribulations and ordeal of adjudication proceedings likely to be conducted by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Indore. It has been further submitted that the petitioner 6 was also arrested by the authorities concerned. From perusal of the notice, the involvement of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned, inspite of that, notice is being issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has categorically submitted that according to business term between him and M/s. Ankita Gold Workshop, the petitioner has issued a bill in a normal way of business and only on the basis of issuance of bill, it cannot be said that petitioner is involved in smuggling etc. Since, the entire action taken against the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary, issuance of show-cause notice itself is not in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. He would submit that the petitioner has come before this Court to question the issuance of show-cause notice. He further submits that the petitioner should have replied the notice along with documentary as well as oral evidence before the authorities concerned. It has been contended that the show-cause notice dated 18.06.2022 was issued after investigation and the petitioner can very well raise all the issues before the adjudicating authority, who has jurisdiction to decide all the grievance raised by the petitioner, hence, the petitioner should not be allowed to bypass the statutory adjudicating authority. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in WPT 7 No.190/2022 (Nathuram Surendra Kumar Jain v. Union of India and others), in which vide order dated 04.08.2022, the Court has denied to stay the proceedings of show-cause notice stating that against show-cause notice, the question for grant of stay of the effect and operation of the show notice does not arise. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have further placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.137/2022 (Ashok P. Wagh v. Union of India and others) decided on 13.01.2022 to contend that instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. He has also placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Trade Tax Officer, Saharanpur v. Royal Trading Co., (2005) 11 SCC 518, Union of India and another v. Knisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. and another v. Income Tax Officer and others, (2002) 10 SCC 444, Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani, (2013) 14 SCC 661 as well as judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the matters of Veer Bhadra Singh v. Union of India and others decided on 27.06.2019 in WPT No.94/2019 and M/s R.K. Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others 8 decided on 26.06.2019 in WPT No.22/2019, to buttress his submissions. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioner has rushed to the Court only on issuance of show-cause notice, therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed at this stage as the petitioner can freely agitate his grievance before the competent authority. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 10.Bare perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner would show that preliminary submissions were made by the petitioner as well as his representative(s) and after consideration thereof, the notice under challenge was issued. The details of notice purport that the averments of the petitioner was too considered and thereafter, he was given opportunity of hearing in person before adjudication of the case. The said notice further shows that the case is posted for hearing and the petitioner was given opportunity of being heard before any order has been passed. The language of show cause notice would show that after preliminary consideration, the authority issuing the same came to a conclusion that the petitioner has willfully suppressed certain facts of rendering service provided to him. The show-cause notice further speaks that such facts came to fore when the investigation of 9 records was carried out and after examination of records, the authority was of the opinion that suppression of facts exists. 11.Considering the show-cause notice if suppression of certain facts exists, then in such background, the arguments of the petitioner that the writ petition would be required to be decided on admitted facts cannot be considered. If certain facts come to fore which were earlier suppressed, then the admitted facts become porous and new facts surface which may require reconsideration. The attention that the issue has generated is predominantly on the mixed question of facts and law. If certain facts emerge which were under the veil, the entire dimension of an issue may be changed. 12. At this stage, since the petitioner has been given opportunity of hearing, the prayer to quash the show-cause notice at the inception would amount to strangulate the issue which is yet to be adjudicated. The analogy of Siemen India Ltd. 2007 5 STR, therefore, would govern the situation that it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of writ and quash the show-cause notice by evaluating the language of it as primarily it does not show that it is without jurisdiction. Further, it would be wrong to hold that the authority issuing the show-cause notice has acted upon with premeditated mind. The language and narration made in the show-cause notice do not give such 10 impression to quash the same at the inception. The petitioner has all the right to canvass his grievance before the adjudicating authority by whom he has been given notice to appear and explain his case. 13. Therefore, we affirm the finding given by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner is having remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act and thereafter further remedy of appeal under Section 129 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. All the grounds raised in this petition are available to the petitioner to be raised before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is competent to appreciate the technical grounds raised by the petitioner. 14. Be that as it may, it is the trite law that ordinarily a writ proceeding should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice because the same does not give rise to any cause of action, as it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. A mere show-cause notice does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is 11 passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 16.The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 17. In light of the above facts and settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to entertain the writ appeal. 18. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 19. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Shoaib