Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 14 in The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
M/S.Visal Lubetech Corporation vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs on 30 September, 2016
24. The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent relied on the decision of this Court passed in WP Nos. 33741 and 33742 of 2016 dated 30.09.2016 in the case of (M/s. Visal Lubtech Corporation and another vs. The Additional Commissioner of Customs) to buttress his submission as regards maintainability of this writ petition. In the said decision, the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Enquiry Officer to cross-examine the witness. However, a separate order was passed by the disciplinary authority rejecting the request of the petitioner therein to cross-examine the witness, but such order was not challenged by the petitioner therein. In such circumstances, this Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable when the petitioner did not challenge the consequential order passed by the respondent. The said decision rendered by this Court, which was relied on by the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent, cannot lend support to his case.
The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By vs Tvl.Nu Tread Tyres on 27 July, 2006
28. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of (State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nu-tread Tyres) (2002) 142 STC 256 (Madras) wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that the person who makes a declaration must do so with full knowledge that the declaration so made by him is not correct or he made such declaration knowing it to be false. It was held by the Full Bench of this Court that in such case, the authorities must satisfy themselves that there appears an element of mensrea on the part of the assessee to make false representation or misdeclaration with full knowledge to evade customs duty or other charges to the exchequer. In the absence of the same, the authorities are not justified in imposing penalty. Further it was held that when there are two views are plausible, in the matter as to whether the goods purchased are covered by the registration certificate or not, the mere issue of a C form certificate by the assessee without any further material will not lead to the conclusion that the assessee has made false representation and the question whether the assessee acted under the honest belief or not is a question of fact. By applying the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court to the facts of this case, in this case, the petitioner manufactured and exported medallions on the basis of the Letter of Approval given to them. Such goods exported by the petitioner was accepted and approved by the respondent without any demur. Moreover, the respondent themselves have given certificate of appreciation to the petitioner firm for achieving highest export turnover in the year 2010-2011 in gem and jewellery sector. Such a certificate could not have been issued by the respondent without examining the manner in which the export process has been commenced and completed by the petitioner, whether the petitioner has violated any of the terms and conditions of LoA and other factors which might have weighed the respondent for issuing such a certificate of appreciation. Such certificate will also throw much light on the fact that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation or misdeclaration to cheat the exchequer or there is any mens rea on the part of the petitioner to do so. In such view of the matter, in the absence of any ill-intention or mens rea on the part of the petitioner to gain unlawfully by exporting goods which are not permitted to be exported by them as per the LoA, as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court, the respondent is not justified in imposing penalty.
Babu Ram Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs Antarim Zila Parishad Muzaffar Nagar on 2 August, 1968
23. As regards the plea of alternative remedy raised by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, it is no doubt true that in the impugned order, reference was made to the availability of alternative relief before the appellate authority. However, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition invoking the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. It is needless to mention that even though alternative remedy is available, yet, it is always not a bar to the petitioner to approach this Court or on that ground, this Court need not refuse to entertain the writ petition. In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mani Subrat Jain etc., vs. State of Haryana and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 276 it was held that when there is judicially enforceable right as well as legally protected right, then a person suffering from a legal grievance can seek for a Mandamus under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheswari vs. Antarim Zila Parishad) reported in AIR 1964 SC 556 held that existence of alternative remedy is always not a bar for filing a writ petition where it is alleged that the Court or Tribunal acted against the provisions of law and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Section 10AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
1