2021-TIOL-1154-HC-MAD-CX
Rasi Electrodes Ltd Vs UoI
CX - Demand dated 12.08.2004 issued by the 3 rd respondent is under challenge - Petitioner submits that the amount claimed in the impugned demand notice had already been paid by the petitioner company and TR6 Challans were also produced by the writ petitioner company before the competent authorities; that the impugned order is non-speaking and details regarding the non-payment or the circumstances or any other fraudulent accounts on the part of the petitioner company has not been stated in clear terms and, therefore, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the impugned order of demand - counsel for respondent Revenue submitted that the challans are found to be fabricated, therefore, Department has issued the impugned order.
Held: Court is of the considered opinion that impugned demand notice reveals that the amount claimed pertains to the year 1997 - However, the notice was issued in July 2004, after a lapse of about 7 years - Further, the order impugned is non-speaking and the details regarding the enquiry as well as the findings are not made available in the impugned order - Thus, the reason for arriving such a conclusion has not been elaborated in the impugned order - Such non-speaking orders, which was passed after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner cannot be appreciated by this Court - Actions must be within a reasonable period, so as to understand the issues in clear terms and if at all, there is an administrative delay or otherwise or delay in identifying the mistake or fraudulent activities, then appropriate reasons are to be recorded in the order - In the absence of any such reasonings, Courts are bound to draw an inference that such non-speaking order is untenable - Even presuming that the challans are fabricated, an enquiry must be conducted and the findings of the enquiry must be recorded, then only Court can form an opinion that such an order of demand is passed, based on the fabricated Bank challans - In the present case, no such factors are established nor made available in the impugned order - Impugned order is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed: High Court [para 5, 8 to 10]
- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1153-HC-MAD-CUS
Palani Andavar Cotton And Synthetic Spinners Ltd Vs Director Collector
Cus - Petitioner submits that the Settlement Commission granted full immunity from payment of fine and penalty and thereafter, the respondents initiated action under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the interest amount of Rs.1,46,40,000/-; that there is no reason whatsoever to proceed with attachment proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Udumalept , under the Revenue Recovery Act.
Held: Court is of the considered opinion that payment of penalty, adjustment of the amount already paid or full immunity granted by the Settlement Commission, are the disputed facts, which all are to be adjudicated by the Competent Authorities with reference to the documents and the evidences produced by the respective parties - Contrarily, High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry in order to cull out the truth regarding the transactions done as well as the liability, which is to be ascertained and determined with reference to the documents - Such an exercise cannot be done in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -
The scope of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinise the process through which a decision is taken by the Competent Authorities with reference to the Statutes and not the decision itself - Directions issued to the respondent-Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade to consider the representation dated 14.02.2017 submitted by the writ petitioner and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law: High Court [para 8, 9, 12]
- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT |
