Cus - SCN u/s 124 - Petition seeking release of goods on ground that SCN was received after expiry of six months as stipulated u/s 110(2) - Petition dismissed as notice was despatched before expiry of six months: HC
By TIOL News Service
BANGALORE, AUG 28, 2015: THE officers of DRI had seized gold from the Petitioner and issued Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the gold was seized on 16.09.2013 and the Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2014 was received by them on 17.03.2014, which is beyond six months period prescribed and therefore they are entitled for release of the gold.
The Petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court judgement in case of Purushottam Jajodia Vs . Dir. Of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi 2014-TIOL-1303-HC-DEL-CUS wherein it was held that mere dispatch of notice would not amount to "giving" of notice and the words "giving" as found in sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act would be complete only when such notice has reached the person concerned or if such notice after being tendered had been refused.
After noting the fact that the Delhi High Court judgement is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, the High Court held:
A perusal of the said judgment would indicate that judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Commissioner Vs. Ram Kumar Aggarwal (2012 (280) ELT 13 (M.P.) has been distinguished. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ram Kumar Aggarwal's case while interpreting Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Act has held issuance of Show Cause Notice by registered post before the expiry of six (6) months from the date of seizure would be sufficient compliance more particularly when the same is received by the addressee though after lapse of six (6) months. It has been further held that neither Section 110(2) nor clause (a) of Section 124 of the Act contemplates service of notice in strict sense should be within a period of six months. It is submitted that judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28186/2011 by judgment dated 21.10.2011. Thus, judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ram Kumar's case has reached finality and in the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court appeal is yet to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ramkumar's case referred to supra is more persuasive than the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court and as such contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner to consider the case of Purshottam Jajodia rendered by Delhi High Court cannot be accepted.
The High Court further held:
A conspectus reading of Section 153 of the Act would clearly indicate that it does not contain the word "given" as found in Section 110(2) or 124 of the Act. It is well settled proposition of law that true meaning of the words and expressions used by the legislature must be given effect to and courts must have regard to the aim, object and scope of the object to be achieved while interpreting the words used in a statute.
When facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that seizure was done on 16.9.2013 and Show Cause Notice for confiscating the goods seized came to be issued on 13.3.2014 i.e., before period of six months prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act was to expire i.e., on or before 15.3.2014 and said Show Cause Notice dated 13.3.2014 came to be dispatched on the same day. However, it came to be delivered on the petitioner on 17.3.2014 i.e., after the expiry of two days of the period of six months prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the date of service of notice cannot be held as one which entitles the petitioner to seek for return of the goods on the ground that six months period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act had expired.
(See 2015-TIOL-1986-HC-KAR-CUS)
