MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 12th March, 2025 + W.P.(C) 6842/2021 and CM APPL. 34893/2022 CM APPL. 12343/2023 MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Mr. Kunal Kapoor and Mr. Yatharth Tripathi, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC CBIC, Ms. Arya Suresh Nair & Ms. Medha Navami, Advs. (M: 7558898905) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. This writ petition is part of a batch of petitions that were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to quash refund proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (‘DRI’) officials against the Petitioner/s on the ground that DRI officials lack jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 . Reliance was primarily placed on the Supreme Court decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2021 (3) DWI 384 (hereinafter ‘Canon-I’), which had held that DRI Officials were not ‘proper officers’ for the purpose of refund proceedings under Section 28. The operative portion of the Canon-I (Supra) reads as under: Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 6842/2021 Page 1 of 8 Signing Date:19.03.2025 22:15:05 “14. It is well known that when a statute directs that the things be done in a certain way, it must be done in that way alone. As in this case, when the statute directs that "the proper officer" can determine duty not levied/not paid, it does not mean any proper officer but that proper officer alone. We find it completely impermissible to allow an officer, who has not passed the original order of assessment, to re-open th