SEETU KOHLI CONCEPTS PVT LTD AND ORS vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 12th March, 2025 + W.P.(C) 3902/2021 and CM APPL. 11724/2021 CM APPL. 8151/2023 SEETU KOHLI CONCEPTS PVT LTD AND ORS..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Mr. Kunal Kapoor and Mr. Yatharth Tripathi, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Senior Standing Counsel CBIC, Ms Drishti Saraf, Ms Pragya Upadhyay, Advs. (M:99312 82222) 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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 3902/2021 Page 1 of 8 Signing Date:19.03.2025 22:15:05 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: “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. W