Calcutta High Court
Gopal Saha vs The Union Of India & Ors on 23 February, 2017
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT 207 of 2016
GA 1888 of 2016
GOPAL SAHA
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
And
APOT 208 of 2016
GA 1889 of 2016
AJGAR SHEIKH
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
And
GA 2718 of 2016
APOT 319 of 2016
GA 2719 of 2016
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Versus
AJGAR SEIKH
And
GA 2729 of 2016
APOT 320 of 2016
GA 2730 of 2016
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Versus
GOPAL SAHA
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 23rd February, 2017.
2
Mr. Farook M. Razack, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ravi Dubey, Adv. and Ms. Priyanka Bhuroria, Adv.
..for Appellant in APOT 207/2016 and
for Respondent in APOT 320/2016
Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Adv. with Mr. Manaj Malhotra, Adv.
..for Appellant in APOT 208/2016 and ...for Respondent in APOT 319/2016 Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Adv. with Mr. B. P. Banerjee, Adv.
...for Respondent in APOT 207/2016 and APOT 208/2016 for Appellant in APOT 319/2016 and APOT 320/2016 Re : GA 1888 of 2016 with APOT 207 of 2016 The instant application being GA 1888 of 2016 is for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal.
We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time.
We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal. GA 1888 of 2016 is allowed in the above terms.
Re : GA 1889 of 2016 with APOT 208 of 2016 The instant application being GA 1889 of 2016 is for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal.
We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time.
We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal. GA 1888 of 2016 is allowed in the above terms.
Re:GA No.2729 of 2016 with APOT No.320 OF 2016 The instant application is for condonation of delay of 94 days in preferring the appeal. We have gone through the application of the Union of India being G.A.No.2729 of 2016 3 in which condonation of delay is prayed for. In the application, the appellants have prayed for condonation of delay of 109 days. As per the departmental endorsement, however, there is delay of 94 days in preferring the appeal.
The respondent/writ petitioner has also preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment with an application for condonation of delay. We have allowed that application for condonation of delay. The Union of India's appeal is against the said order. On going through the pleadings, we are satisfied that the appeal could not be preferred within prescribed time frame for sufficient cause.
After considering the fact that we have already condoned the delay in filing of appeal by the respondent-writ petitioner, we condone the delay in the instant case also.
G.A.No.2729 of 2016 is accordingly allowed.
Re:GA No.2718 of 2016 with APOT No.319 OF 2016 The instant application is for condonation of delay of 94 days in preferring the appeal. We have gone through the application of the Union of India being G.A.No.2718 of 2016 in which condonation of delay is prayed for. In the application, the appellants have prayed for condonation of delay of 109 days. As per the departmental endorsement, however, there is delay of 94 days in preferring the appeal.
The respondent/writ petitioner has also preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment with an application for condonation of delay. We have allowed that application for condonation of delay. The Union of India's appeal is against the said order. On going through the pleadings, we are satisfied that the appeal could not be preferred within prescribed time frame for sufficient cause.
After considering the fact that we have already condoned the delay in filing of appeal by the respondent-writ petitioner, we condone the delay in the instant case also.
G.A.No.2718 of 2016 is accordingly allowed.
4We are taking up these four appeals and the connected applications for stay directed against the judgment of the learned First Court passed on 28th April, 2016 in two writ petitions being W.P.No.279 of 2016 and W.P.No.280 of 2016. Both the writ petitioners and the Union of India have preferred these appeals.
The main issue involved in these appeals is as to the interpretation of what would constitute prohibited goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
So far as the appeals of the writ petitioners are concerned, Mr.Razack, learned senior advocate, has confined his submissions to the grievance of his clients to the extent that specific opportunity should be given to the writ petitioners in the remand proceedings.
The Revenue in their appeals has taken out petitions seeking stay of the operation of the judgment under appeal. Mr.Ganguli, learned advocate appearing for the Revenue submits that the learned First Court has come to a specific finding on what would constitute prohibited goods and the Revenue is aggrieved by the interpretation of the learned First Court on this point. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi V. Brooks International and Others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 396. In this judgment, Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs reported in (2003) 6 SCC 161 has been relied upon to contend that the goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which the goods are imported or exported have not been complied with would constitute prohibited goods.
Mr. Razack, on the other hand, submits that in relation to statute dealing with imposition of tax, strict construction is necessary in so far as imposition of penalty is concerned.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 10th March, 2017; Reply, if any, be filed by 31st March, 2017. Let all these appeals be listed on 4th April, 2017 under the same heading.
In the event the pleadings filed by the respective parties do not contain any document on which reliance was placed before the learned First Court, the same shall be 5 produced before us with proper indexing. On that condition, we dispense with the requirement of filing formal paper books. The respondents in both the appeals waive service of notice of appeal and compliance of other formalities. The appeals and the stay petitions shall be taken up together for hearing. In the meantime, operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sm/sb