- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Calcutta High Court Stays Show-Cause Notice Issued By DIR By Questioning Its Authority.
Calcutta High Court Stays Show-Cause Notice Issued By DIR By Questioning Its Authority. The Calcutta High Court stayed the show-cause notice issued on 13 April, 2020 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) u/S. 124 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 by questioning its authority. A Single Judge Court of Justice MD. Nizamuddin in the High Court of Calcutta, dealt with...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Calcutta High Court Stays Show-Cause Notice Issued By DIR By Questioning Its Authority.
The Calcutta High Court stayed the show-cause notice issued on 13 April, 2020 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) u/S. 124 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 by questioning its authority.
A Single Judge Court of Justice MD. Nizamuddin in the High Court of Calcutta, dealt with the matter titled M/s. Aktel By Proprietorship Anand Kumar & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors.
The Petitioner – Company through this petition had challenged the show-cause notice issued on 13 April, 2020 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) u/S. 124 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Court relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in M/s. Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs in Civil Appeal No.1827 of 2018 wherein it was held that the DRI had no authority to issue any show-cause notice u/S. 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. By considering the aforesaid judgment, the Court found a prima facie case for staying the show cause notice.
The Court chose not to go into the merits of the case and directed the Respondent – Authorities to file an affidavit-in-opposition.
The Court therefore, stayed the show-cause notice considering the judgment of the Supreme Court till 3 January, 2022.