Union of India & Ors. Vs GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Background and Delhi High Court Proceedings
The Delhi High Court considered a batch of writ petitions challenging show-cause notices and pending adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, the Finance Act, 1994 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In some matters, orders-in-original passed after adjudication were also challenged. The principal grievance was that adjudication had remained pending for extraordinarily long periods, in some cases for decades, and that such delay violated the requirement that statutory adjudicatory proceedings be concluded within a reasonable time.
The Court examined the statutory schemes governing adjudication. In particular, Section 28(9) of the Customs Act prescribed periods for determination of duty or interest, while its Second Proviso contemplated that proceedings would be deemed concluded if determination was not made even within the permissible extended period. Section 28(9A), however, recognised specified circumstances in which the statutory period could not operate in the ordinary manner, including pendency of similar litigation, judicial stay, specific Board directions to keep proceedings pending and proceedings before the Settlement Commission.
The Court also examined the historical controversy concerning the authority of DRI and other officers to issue notices under Section 28. Sayed Ali and Canon India had questioned such jurisdiction, while subsequent legislative amendments and the Supreme Court’s review decision in Commissioner of Customs v. Canon India (P.) Ltd. (Canon II) altered the legal position. In Canon II, the Supreme Court held that DRI and similarly situated officers were proper officers competent to issue Section 28 notices, set aside Mangali Impex, and upheld Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022. The Supreme Court expressly left the limitation aspect of Canon I undisturbed.
