Page 147 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] ASIAN FREIGHT v. PRINCIPAL COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT & ADMINISTRATION) 329

21. Secondly, it was submitted that the orders dated May 3, 2016 and
May 31, 2016 passed by the first respondent would clearly reveal that the offence
report was received in the later part of April, 2016 and immediately thereafter,
action was initiated by the first respondent to suspend the license of the petition-
er. It was urged that prior to receipt of the offence report, issuance of a suspen-
sion order would have been improper and also, could have given rise to a chal-
lenge on the ground that the order of suspension had been passed without any
material before the first respondent.
22. Thirdly, it was contended that a writ petition is ordinarily not main-
tainable against a show cause notice and, therefore, the petitioners ought to be
left free to raise whatever points they might raise in their defence to such notice
before the first respondent.
23. Finally, it was contended that the proceedings for revocation of li-
cence do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Relying on the affidavit of the
first respondent, it was contended that although the offence report had been re-
ceived by the Central Receiving Section, Correspondence Department of the first
respondent on April 19, 2016, such offence report was actually placed before the
first respondent on April 22, 2016, consequent whereupon the file was started for
proceeding in the matter in accordance with law. It is claimed in such affidavit
that constructive knowledge of the first respondent in relation to the offence re-
port was from April 22, 2016 and not prior thereto and, therefore, issuance of the
show cause notice on July 18, 2016 for being dispatched by post cannot be held to
be a vitiating factor so as to warrant the show cause notice to be interdicted and
the revocation proceedings nipped in the bud.
24. Mr. Ganguly, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
25. In reply, Mr. Saraf contended that the CESTAT is not available on a
regular basis and, therefore, having regard to the grave uncertainty associated
with regular sitting of the CESTAT, the Bench may decide the contentious issues
on merits. Answering the other contentions raised by Mr. Ganguly, Mr. Saraf
reiterated the submissions that have been noticed above.
26. Having heard Learned Advocates for the parties, this Bench is of
the considered view that the following points emerge for decision :
(i) Whether the petitioners ought to be relegated to the CESTAT for
challenging the order dated May 31, 2016 confirming the order of
suspension dated May 3, 2016?
(ii) Should the first point be answered in the negative, does the order of
suspension dated May 3, 2016 and the subsequent order dated May
31, 2016 confirming such suspension, warrant interference?
(iii) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances, the noticee should be al-
lowed to challenge the show cause notice dated July 18, 2016 in writ
proceedings?
(iv) Whether, initiation of action for revocation of license against the pe-
titioners by notice dated July 18, 2016 is valid in law, having regard
to the provisions of Regulation 20(1) of the 2013 Regulations?
(v) Whether on the authority of the decision in Md. Yeasin (supra), the
petitioners are entitled to any relief?
27. Each point is now proposed to be considered one after the other.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  147