Chaman Lal Bhambri (M/S U.S. Enterprises) vs. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Import And Anr

Held

The Court addressed the issue of the 'call book' mechanism and its application to the SCNs in question. It was held that the transfer of SCNs to the call book and their subsequent withdrawal were governed by various Board Instructions and office memoranda. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in *Canon India Private Limited* had dealt with a similar issue, and subsequent instructions, such as Instruction No. 04/2021 – Customs dated 17.03.2021, were issued in light of that ruling. The Court also observed that in some instances, the petitioners themselves had requested personal hearings, and their subsequent objections to the adjudication process were considered in light of their own conduct. The Court found that the revenue authorities had attempted to proceed with adjudication, but delays were often caused by the petitioners' actions or requests for adjournments. The Court did not find the revenue's actions regarding the call book to be inherently illegal, provided they were in line with the prevailing instructions and legal framework at the time. The Court also noted that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022, provided for validation in certain circumstances. The operative direction was to proceed with the adjudication process in accordance with law, considering the observations made in the judgment.

Facts

This judgment consolidates multiple writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court concerning the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The petitioners, including M/s Vos Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Amyra Technica Pvt. Ltd., and others, are challenging various orders and actions taken by revenue authorities, primarily the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Commissioners of Customs. The core of the dispute appears to revolve around the issuance and handling of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and the subsequent adjudication proceedings. Several petitions highlight issues related to the transfer of SCNs to and from the 'call book' based on various Board instructions and Supreme Court rulings, such as the one in *Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs*. The procedural history involves multiple dates of SCN issuance, transfers to the call book, and subsequent re-initiation of proceedings, with petitioners often seeking adjournments or challenging the process itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) to and from the 'call book' by the revenue authorities, based on various Board instructions and judicial pronouncements, was legally valid and complied with principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the ruling in *Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs*? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the interpretation and application of Board Instructions and Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioners argue that the arbitrary transfer of SCNs to and from the call book, especially when done without proper justification or adherence to established procedures, prejudices their right to a fair hearing and adjudication. They contend that the prolonged pendency and repeated re-initiation of proceedings violate principles of natural justice. They rely on the Supreme Court's decision in *Canon India Private Limited* to argue that such actions must be guided by specific legal provisions and not mere administrative instructions that cause undue delay. Revenue's contentions: The revenue authorities assert that the actions taken regarding the call book were in compliance with the instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and were necessitated by evolving legal interpretations and judicial pronouncements. They contend that the petitioners themselves have contributed to delays by seeking adjournments and not appearing for personal hearings, thereby obstructing the adjudication process. They may rely on specific Board Instructions and office memoranda that guided their actions.