Madras High Court
M/S.Indian Shipping And Logistics ... vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 3 October, 2019
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, R.Tharani
W.A.(MD)No.985/ 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2019
in
C.M.P.(MD)No.8989 of 2019
M/s.Indian Shipping and Logistics Facility Pvt Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager G.Sathish,
3/188/5A, MSP Tower,
Palayamkottai Main Road,
Tuticorin-628 101. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin-628 004.
2.The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals),
Custom House, No.1, Williams Road,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
3.The Additional Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin-628 004.
4.The Deputy Commissioner,
Custom House,
New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin-628 004.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Import Assessment,
Custom House,
New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin-628 004. ..Respondents
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.985/ 2019
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to
set aside order made in W.P.(MD)No.17624 of 2017, dated 08.08.2019
passed by this Court and allow this writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Aravindan
Central Government Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of this Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.P.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.R.Aravindan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed against the order, dated 08.08.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.17624 of 2017. The said writ petition was filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the fourth respondent, dated 08.08.2017. The learned Single Bench has dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order. For better appreciation, we quote the finding rendered by the learned Single Bench in paragraph No. 6 of the order below:-
“6. I may state, at the threshold and straightaway that I am not inclined to consider the prayer of the petition for the reason that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is wholly bereft of material facts. It was incumbent on the part 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.985/ 2019 of the petitioner to have brought to the notice of the Court all the material events that have transpired in the matter, its letters dated 06.06.2017, 08.06.2017 and 14.06.2017 and the sequence of events leading to the issuance of the impugned show-cause notice. The fact that by letter dated 08.06.2017, the petitioner had accepted the levy of penalty and informed the assessing authority that it would remit the same, that it invited issuance of show cause notice, reiterating the request on 14.06.2017 constitute relevant material facts and ought to have been disclosed for appreciation by the Court. This has not been done and it was only when these factors were referred to by the revenue counsel that they came within the knowledge of the Court. I am of the view that since the petitioner has suppressed material facts leading to the issuance of the show cause notice, it does not deserve the indulgence of the Court and I, hence, reject this Writ Petition in limine.”
3. On a reading of the above paragraph, it is evidently clear that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts in the writ petition. This has been specifically pointed out by the learned Single Bench in observing that the letters, dated 06.06.2017, 08.06.2017 and 14.06.2017 and the sequence of events leading to the issuance of show cause notice were not mentioned. It was further observed by the learned Single Bench that all these facts came to light only after the counsel, who appeared for the department had placed the same for consideration of the Court. The appellant does not have any explanation for the finding given by the learned Single Bench and on a reading of the affidavit filed 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.985/ 2019 in support of the writ petition, we find that three letters written by him on 06.06.2017, 08.06.2017 and 14.06.2017 have not been mentioned.
Therefore, we fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Bench.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeal against the order imposing penalty is pending before the Commissioner and the Commissioner has also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and orders are awaited. Admittedly, there is no stay in the appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner. Mere pendency of the appeal is not a bar for the lower authority to proceed further in the matter. Therefore, we find no good reasons to interfere with the order and direction issued by the learned Single Bench.
5. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed and the time granted by the writ Court to reply to the show cause notice is extended by a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S.,J] [R.T., J]
03.10.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ta
4/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.985/ 2019
5/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.985/ 2019
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
R.THARANI, J.
ta
ORDER MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.985 of 2019
03.10.2019
6/6
http://www.judis.nic.in