Shri Gaurav Kumar Jain vs Union of India & Ors.

A show cause notice dated September 13, 2010 is under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that, the authority who issued the show

cause notice had no jurisdiction to issue the same. Learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon a judgment and order dated July

10, 2018 passed in WP No.3336(W) of 2018 (Navneet Kumar Versus Union of India & Ors.) and submits that, the writ petitioner is similarly situated

and circumstanced as that of the writ petitioner in Navneet Kumar (supra). Â

The same issue of lack of jurisdiction (supra). of the authority to issue the show cause notice is involved in the present writ petition as that of Navneet

Kumar Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a stay of the proceedings emanating out of the impugned notice, if not quashing of the same, at this

stage. He submits that, the petitioner came to the writ Court earlier for supply of relied upon documents. Such writ petition was disposed of by the

order dated June 13, 2013. It is subsequent thereto that, the petitioner is coming to the Writ Court. There is no delay on the part of the writ petitioner in

approaching the writ Court.

Learned Advocate appearing for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence submits that, the writ petitioner is a fence-sitter. The petitioner did not take

point of lack of jurisdiction of the authority to issue the show-cause notice at the stage when the petitioner came to the writ Court earlier. The

petitioner cannot be allowed to take the point at this stage. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties I find that, the notice dated September 13,

2010 was issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

Navneet Kumar (supra) deals with the authority of Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue a show cause notice. It

holds that, such authority has not jurisdiction to do so. In the facts of the present case, it appears that, the show cause notice is eight years old being

issued on September 13, 2010. The petitioner did approach the writ Court earlier in WP No.7278(W) of 2013 which was disposed of by an order dated

June 13, 2013. At that stage, the writ petitioner did not question the jurisdiction of the authority to issue the show cause notice.

Navneet Kumar (supra) is under consideration by the appeal Court. In such circumstances, I am not minded to grant any order of stay of the

proceedings at this stage. The authorities are at liberty to proceed with the show cause notice, in accordance with law. Needless to say that, such

proceedings will abide by the result of the writ petition. Learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the authority is yet to supply

the entire relied upon document. They may be directed to do so within a specific period and the petitioner may be permitted to submit its reply without

prejudice to its rights and contentions.

According to the respondents, all documents have been supplied. However, in order to avoid further controversies, in the event, the respondents seek

to rely upon any further documents in the proceedings, they are at liberty to do so. They will supply such documents to the petitioner within a fortnight

from date. The petitioner is at liberty to submit its reply within three weeks thereafter.

It is clarified that, the petitioner can participate in the proceedings without prejudice to its rights and contentions. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed

within four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List the writ petition under the heading “Hearing†in the

Monthly Combined List of November, 2018. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon