Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)
R. Sundar vs Deputy Collector Of Customs, Tuticorin on 23 January, 1996 cites

K. Narasimhah vs H. C. Singri Gowda on 1 April, 1964

In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Supreme Court in K. Narasimhiah v. H. C. Singri Gowda & Others which is to the effect that giving of the notice is not complete unless and until it reaches the person concerned or its actual tender to him. Learned counsel for the Department has contended that mere despatch of the notice to the person does complete the giving of notice. However, I am of the view that the period of limitation has to be decided by the authorities concerned with reference to all the documents relied on by both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited decisions in A. I. R. 1972 Gujarat, 126 and I. J. Rao, Asstt. Collr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 93 - K C Gupta - Full Document

I.J. Rao, Assistant Collector Of ... vs Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh & Anr on 12 May, 1989

of Customs v. Bibhuti Bhusan Bagh and Another - wherein the Supreme Court has observed that if the notice is not issued in the confiscation proceedings within six months from the date of seizure, the person from whose possession the goods have been seized becomes immediately entitled to the return of the goods. It is possible that while notice was issued before the expiry of that period, service of such notice may not be effected on the person concerned in sufficient time to enable the Collector to make the order of extension before that period expires. According to the petitioner this has not been done by the Collector of Customs. Since the notice has not been served on the petitioner within the time, the proceedings are liable to be quashed as barred by limitation. There are also other decisions to support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner must be given sufficient opportunity to place all the authorities. The Department must be permitted to place all the authorities before the Court concerned. I see force in this contention. However, since the matter required consideration of seizure of documents and service of notice, it is but proper that the authorities themselves are directed to consider and decide the issue. Therefore, I remit the matter on this issue to the first respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 41 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1