Hinduja Global Solutions Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court has granted an interim stay on a show-cause notice issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port) to Hinduja Global Solutions Limited and another entity. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the customs authority to issue the notice, arguing that the Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS) scrips in question, issued to the first petitioner, have not yet been cancelled by the issuing authorities, namely Cochin EPZ and DGFT, Mumbai.
Mr. Mukherjee, the learned senior counsel representing the petitioners, argued that as long as the SEIS scrips remain validly issued and not cancelled by the designated authorities, the customs department lacks the jurisdictional competence to issue a show-cause notice concerning these scrips. He emphasized that the power to cancel the scrips lies solely with the issuing bodies.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities sought leave to file an affidavit-in-opposition, submitting that the adjudication process had not yet commenced. They contended that all the points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition could be addressed and adjudicated before the designated adjudicating authority within the customs department.
After hearing the arguments, the Calcutta High Court found that the petitioner had presented a prima facie case regarding the validity of the SEIS scrips. The court observed that since the issuing authorities had not yet cancelled the scrips, there was a valid question mark on the jurisdiction of the customs authorities to issue the show-cause notice. Consequently, the court ordered an interim stay on the operation of the show-cause notice until the final disposal of the writ petition.
The High Court directed the respondent authorities to file their affidavit-in-opposition within six weeks from the date of the order. The petitioners were granted four weeks thereafter to file a reply to the affidavit. The matter has been scheduled to reappear in the monthly list of May 2025 under the heading “Hearing” for further consideration and final disposal.
At this stage of the proceedings, the counsel representing the respondent authorities raised a question concerning the maintainability of the writ petition itself. The High Court explicitly kept this question of maintainability open for consideration during the final hearing of the matter.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
