News Update

India, Oman resolve to expediate talks for DTAATight schedule for Monsoon Session - 46 bills to be passed in 24 daysGovt proposes to amend law for Fastags for all commercial vehiclesCBDT Instruction No 3/18 - Board asks CCITs to wrap up withdrawal of appeals by Aug 20, 2018I-T - If assessee fails to establish urgent nature of business necessities for taking loans from its Directors in cash, such transaction warrants levy of penalty u/s 271D: ITAT Special BenchOECD employment rate raises by 0.2% in Q1SC asks Parliament to enact new law to deal with mobocracyST - If GOI department could be treated as using 'Residential Complex' constructed by NBCC for its 'personal use', how another Corporate body could be denied benefit of that type of user of 'Residential Complex' to be occupied by its Managerial Staff: HCPlace of removal - Valuation under CE & Customs Laws - past and present (See 'TOG INSIGHT' on 'Taxongo.com')India mulling safeguard duty on Chinese and Malaysian solar panelsGovt hikes basic import duty on many textile goodsIMF says India to be fastest growing economy in 2019CBDT prescribes registration form for Non-resident applicantsIs disallowing supplementary claim under MEIS & SEIS Scheme by DGFT valid?CX - On being pointed out, Assessee immediately reversed Credit wrongly availed - there cannot be said to be any fraud through which it wanted to evade Duty - setting aside of interest & penalty cannot be faulted: HCIGST refund - CBIC launches another fortnightly drive till July 30I-T - Complaint received against assessee is a reason to suspect but it is not a reason to believe that some income has escaped assessment untill AO verifies content of information before initiating re-assessment: ITATWCO Secretary General lauds India's efforts to use technology for trade facilitationBrahMos successfully test-fired from Balasore Test RangeIndia-Oman Joint Commission Meeting begins in MuscatHi-tech maritime labs launching programmes for traineesChina's GDP logs 6.8% growth in first half of fiscal20 hurt in pandal collapse during PM's Midnapore political rallyExports - Accountability of inputs - DGFT eases norms for Advance Authorisation holdersCustoms - CBIC expands list of exempt items for handicraft sectorI-T - Even if soil separated from land and put in containers it continues to be specie of land and income from growing mushrooms in such containers under controlled environment is agri income exempt u/s 10(1): ITAT Special BenchWTO - Govt officials attend workshop on SPS control, Inspection & approval proceduresI-T - Surplus generated by agriculturist on sale of his agri land is no basis to deny exemption u/s 2(14) and treat sale consideration as business income: HCSecond Year of GST - A year to amend mistakesCommittee set up to examine 'decriminalisation' of offences under Companies Act
 
CX - Belated challenge to O-in-O - Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 226: High Court

 

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, JULY 11, 2018: AGAINST O-in-Odated 27.2.2009 , an appeal was filed before the CESTAT, which by its order dated 01.02.2010 directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs.1 crore. A modification application was filed by the appellant/petitioner but the same was rejected and, accordingly the appeal was dismissed by Tribunal on 07.06.2010.

An appeal was filed but the Division Bench, by judgment dated 13.2.2015 , dismissed CMA. No.61 of 2015 -   2015-TIOL-467-HC-MAD-CX. In doing so, the Division Bench not only rejected the appeal on the ground that there are no substantial questions of law involved but approved the findings rendered by the Tribunal with regard to the merits of the case as well as the conditional order to pay Rs.1 Crore.

The appeal filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 12.10.2015 . And the review petition too met a similar fate on 18.02.2016 . So much so that even the curative petition failed to make any change in the fortunes of the petitioner – the same was dismissed by order dated 12.01.2017.

After all these events, the petitioner is again before the Madras High Court challenging the Order-in-Original dated 27.2.2009.

The High Court considered the facts of the case and observed - at this distance of time, this Court cannot entertain a challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 27.2.2009.

The petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of  Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2018-TIOL-484-HC-AP-CX-LB wherein it is held that the High Court, under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, would exercise its discretion judicially on the facts of the individual case and would examine as to whether the challenge made by such writ petitioner should be entertained and what would weigh with the Court is as to whether gross injustice would result from non consideration of the challenge sought to be laid against the Order-in-Original.

Negating this submission, the High Court added –

"12. In the instant case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion for more than one reason. Firstly, the matter involves a commercial transaction and it is not as if the petitioner was not aware of their rights. A cursory reading of the Order-in-Original dated 27.2.2009, which runs to more than 55 pages, shows that extensive search and seizure operations were conducted in the place of business of the petitioner as well as the residential premises of the partners, statements were recorded, documents were seized and after analyzing the facts, an order came to be passed. There is also a finding to the effect that the petitioner created bogus records. The petitioner went before the Tribunal alleging that they were not granted an opportunity to cross examine a particular person. This aspect was specifically considered by the Tribunal and rejected by order dated 01.2.2010. Thus, on facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for exercise of discretion in their favour to maintain such a belated challenge to the Order-in-Original. Such a challenge is not maintainable in the light of the factual position set out above."

The writ petition was dismissed.

 

(See 2018-TIOL-1305-HC-MAD-CX )


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

GST 1st Anniversary - A Hardlook (Episode 2) | simply inTAXicating

What's New

CGST Notification
CGST Rate Notification
CGST Circular
Income Tax Notification
Income Tax Circular
Customs Tariff Notification
Customs NT Notification
Customs Circular
Anti Dumping Notification
DGFT Notification
DGFT Public Notice
DGFT Circular
RBI Circular

TAXATION & WILDLIFE