Rajesh Gupta (Sanjay Lala ) And 2 Others vs. Union Of INDIA And 9 Others

Held

The Court declined to interfere in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that the dispute involved questions of fact regarding the origin of the goods (domestic vs. imported) and their correct description in the invoice, which required factual inquiry and evidence appreciation. The Court noted that the petitioners had already availed two statutory remedies and found no justification for them to avoid filing a second appeal before the Tribunal and instead seek adjudication in writ proceedings. The Court also stated that the condition of pre-deposit for filing an appeal is a statutory requirement and does not negate the right of appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a statutory appeal before the Tribunal within two weeks, with the Tribunal directed to treat the appeal as filed within time and decide it on merits.

Facts

The petitioners, Rajesh Gupta and two others, challenged an order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The petitioners claimed that the goods in question originated from Mizoram, within India, and that they were merely the first purchasers of these goods domestically. They asserted that they had not imported any goods and that the consigner in Mizoram, if anyone, should have been proceeded against. The revenue contended that the invoice declaration was false, the goods were mis-described, and different goods were found upon physical verification during transportation by the petitioners. The revenue also noted that the petitioners had participated in prior proceedings, resulting in an Adjudication Order dated 08.12.2021, which was appealed and subsequently dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 21.03.2023, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), is without jurisdiction, considering the petitioners' claim that the goods originated domestically from Mizoram and were not imported. 2. Whether the petitioners, as the first purchasers of goods within the country, can be proceeded against under GST laws when the alleged mis-declaration or mis-description of goods occurred prior to their involvement, and whether the consigner in Mizoram should have been the subject of proceedings. Petitioner's arguments: The goods originated in Mizoram, not from outside the country. Certificates from Mizoram authorities supported this claim. The petitioners were only the first purchasers and had no role in any alleged import or mis-declaration. The consigner at Mizoram, if any, should have been proceeded against, not the petitioners. They have been unnecessarily harassed. Revenue's arguments: The invoice declaration was false, and the goods were mis-described. Physical verification revealed different goods during transportation by the petitioners. The petitioners participated in earlier proceedings, leading to an Adjudication Order and a subsequent appeal that was dismissed. The petitioners have a further statutory remedy of appeal to the Tribunal.