Madras High Court
M/S.Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Senior Intelligence Officer on 17 April, 2021
Writ Petition No.9341 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Writ Petition No.9431 of 2021
and WMP Nos.10016, 10017 and 10018 of 2021
M/s.Larsen & Toubro Limited
represented by its Head – Finance, Accounts &
Administration
Mr.P.Jayaprakash
Mount Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam,
Chennai – 600 089.
.... Petitioner
Vs
1. Senior Intelligence Officer,
Nhava Sheva – I, Mumbai Zonal Unit,
208, 209, 215, 2nd floor, D-Wing,
M/s.Navi Mumbai SEZ Commercial Complex,
Sector 11, Dronagiri, Raigad – 400 702
2. The Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai – II Commisionerate,
Custom House, No.60 Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001
3. The Commissioner of Customs (Aone -1)
Import – I Commissionerate,
New Custom House, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai – 400 001.
.... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent
culminating in issue of summons bearing numbers 93 to 101 all dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.9341 of 2021
01.04.2021 issued by the first respondent from File No.DRI/MZU/NS-I/INT-
08/2021 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Murugappan
For Respondent : Mr.V.Sundareswaran
Senior Panel Counsel– R1
*********
ORDER
Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice for
the first respondent and is armed with instructions to proceed with the matter
finally even at the stage of admission. In the light of order that I propose to
pass in this matter, no notice to R2 and R3 are necessary at this juncture.
Hence, by consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior
Standing Counsel for R1, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at this
stage.
2. This Writ Petition is filed by Larsen & Toubro Limited challenging
summons issued to nine officials of the petitioner company in terms of Section
108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'Act') calling upon the attendance of the
addressees therein before the officials on various dates. The summons are
challenged on the ground that the merits of the transactions sought to be
enquired into, relate to the taxability of Tunnel Boring Machines used for
executing infrastructure products and the said issue is pending before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.9341 of 2021
Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), at the instance of this petitioner. The
petitioner would thus state that since the AAR is seized of this very issue, the
authorities should await the decision of the AAR before proceeding further, if
at all. I am of the view that this request should be made before the authorities
for their consideration, in accordance with law.
3. The challenge to the summons itself is pre-mature, insofar as it only
calls upon the addressees to appear before the officials for a preliminary
hearing. One cannot assume or hypothesize on what the purpose of the
summons is and I am thus loathe to interfere, at this juncture.
4. I draw support in this connection from a judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs V. M.M.Exports (Civil Appeal
Nos.82-83 of 2002 along with C.A.No.81 of 2002 dated 01.03.2007), wherein
the Supreme Court has also cautioned interference with enquiry at preliminary
stages, such as issuance of summons.
5. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that it will be called upon to remit the differential duty, seeing as, according
to him, 25% of the duty relating to the issue in dispute has already been
deposited. However, there is absolutely nothing on record to support such an
apprehension or fear.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.9341 of 2021
6. Representation dated 11.03.2021 filed by the petitioner before the
authorities, to which my attention is drawn, only requests that the proceedings
be deferred till a decision is rendered by AAR and does not make a mention of
any threat put forth by the officials in regard to the remittance of the duty, in
advance. The petitioner has, in its submission dated 03.04.2021, made an
incidental reference to 'pressure' being exerted by the revenue to make
payment. However, I reiterate that since the matter is pending at the stage of
summons, it is for the parties to take things forward in a proper manner and in
accordance with law, bearing in mind that proper procedure and protocol
should be followed in matters of conduct of enquiry, investigation and
adjudication.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, citing the on-going pandemic,
requests that the proceedings may be conducted virtually rather than by way of
physical hearing. Such request may be made before the authorities for their
consideration in accordance with mutual convenience as well as integrity of
procedure.
8. With these observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed..
17.04.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
sl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.9341 of 2021
To
1. Senior Intelligence Officer,
Nhava Sheva – I, Mumbai Zonal Unit,
208, 209, 215, 2nd floor, D-Wing,
M/s.Navi Mumbai SEZ Commercial Complex,
Sector 11, Dronagiri, Raigad – 400 702
2. The Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai – II Commisionerate,
Custom House, No.60 Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001
3. The Commissioner of Customs (Aone -1)
Import – I Commissionerate,
New Custom House, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai – 400 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Petition No.9341 of 2021
Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
Sl
Writ Petition No.9431 of 2021
and WMP Nos.10016, 10017 and 10018 of 2021
17.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
