Punjab-Haryana High Court
Trb International Ludhiana vs Commissioner Of Customs on 15 March, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038045-DB
5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC:038045-DB
RA-CW-392-2023
IN CWP-2782-2023
Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
T.R.B. International Ludhiana ...Petitioner
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Navin Bindal, Advocate for the review applicant.
Mr. Saurabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
Application has been filed by the review applicant-petitioner
seeking review of order passed by this Court dated 20.10.2023, whereby the
writ petition seeking prayer for restraining the respondent from adjudicating
show cause notices both dated 28.01.2022 on account of limitation, was
dismissed.
2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the review applicant submits
that non-consideration of a judgment cited before the Court is a sufficient
ground to review of the order. She further submits that the judgment passed
in the case of Gautam Spinners v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) New
Delhi and another WP(C) No.122/2023, was cited before the Court, wherein,
Delhi High Court has taken a view that the judgment passed in the case of
M/s Canon India Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2021 SCC
Online SC 2000, would have no application in cases where the show cause
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038045-DB
RA-CW-392-2023 IN CWP-2782-2023 [2]
2024:PHHC:038045-DB
notice has been issued by the appropriate authority and not by the Directorate
General of Intelligence (DRI). In Canon's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide its judgment dated 09.03.2021, held that the DRI Officer is not the
Proper Officer under the Customs Act, 1962, and, therefore, would not come
within the definition of Proper Officer as mentioned in Section 28 (9B) of
the Customs Act, 1962. Learned counsel submits that while deciding the
present writ petition an error apparent on face of record occurred as this
Court while dismissing the writ petition held that the extension was rightly
granted keeping in view the letter dated 09.12.2022. The letter dated
09.12.2022, granting extension was passed on the basis of verdict of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon's case (supra), whereas in terms of Gautam
Spinners' case (supra), the said judgment would have no application and
extension could not have been granted on the said basis as in the present case,
the show cause notice was not issued by the DRI Officer. Learned counsel
relies on (2007) 12 SCC 596, Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, in support of her submissions for
reviewing the order.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the revenue submits
that the ground for rejecting the writ petition is essentially for the reasons that
the petitioner has deliberately not submitted his reply to the show cause
notices issued on 28.01.2022 for ten months although he was supposed to file
reply within 30 days. The petitioner had taken dates time and again and
postponed the personal hearing also. He attended the first personal hearing on
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038045-DB
RA-CW-392-2023 IN CWP-2782-2023 [3]
2024:PHHC:038045-DB
01.02.2023 and he was made aware about the extension of one year of the
case in terms of the order passed by the Chief Commissioner dated
15.12.2022. Learned counsel submits that the order passed on 09.12.2022
was only a letter sent by the Commissioner seeking extension and therein he
has referred the case of Canon's (supra), whereas the Chief Commissioner
while granting extension on 15.12.2022, has taken into consideration all the
circumstances.
We have considered the submissions.
The scope of review is limited to the extent where this Court
finds that some error on the face of record has been committed while passing
the judgment. The same can also be exercised in cases where there is a
jurisdictional error or where there is a non-consideration of a binding
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The reference may be made to the
judgment cited at bar in the case of Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal vs. State Tax
Officer (1) and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406. In Sanjay Kumar
Aggarwal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitutional
Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retired), held that even the change in law or subsequent
decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by
itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:-
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or
an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure
from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a
substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038045-DB
RA-CW-392-2023 IN CWP-2782-2023 [4]
2024:PHHC:038045-DB
(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by
a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the face of record justifying the Court to exercise its
power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it
is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and
corrected."
(v) A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have
already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which
mere looking at the record should strike and it should not
require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points
where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of
a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a
ground for review.
The judgment passed in Gautam Spinners' case (supra),
although has not been referred to in order passed by this Court which the
petitioner seeks review, but we find that in letter dated 09.12.2022, the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon's case (supra) has been
mentioned. A presumption, therefore, can be drawn that the Court while
deciding the writ petition originally had taken into consideration the entire
law as laid down by the Superior Court. Thus, based on a judgment passed by
a Coordinate Bench of another High Court, it is not essential for this Court to
view its own order as the judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038045-DB
RA-CW-392-2023 IN CWP-2782-2023 [5]
2024:PHHC:038045-DB
various High Courts may have relevance but are not necessary to be
followed. A different view can always be taken by each and every High
Court in relation with law while deciding the various writ petitions.
In view of the above, we do not devolve upon the question
further and accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
15.03.2024
rajesh
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No
5 of 5
