2006 (1) TMI 255 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice issued under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for recovery of dues or penalties imposed under the Foreign Trade Act, 1992.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for the recovery of a penalty imposed under the Foreign Trade Act, 1992. The petitioner was engaged in the export business of drugs under the DEPB scheme and faced allegations of falsely declaring exported goods. The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade imposed a fiscal penalty on the petitioner, which the District Collector was authorized to recover. The key issue was whether the notice under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act could be validly issued for recovering dues under the Foreign Trade Act.

The respondents argued that under the Foreign Trade Act, any penalty not paid could be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. They contended that the Collector, as the competent authority, could recover the dues under the State Act, i.e., the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The respondents highlighted the interplay between the Central Act and the State Act for effective recovery of arrears of land revenue owed to the Central Government.

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act) and emphasized that once a matter is referred to the Collector of a district, the recovery could proceed as arrears of land revenue under the State Act. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that recovery could only be made under the Central Act, noting that the Collector had the authority to recover land revenue under the State Act without the need for additional certification.

In its decision, the Court referenced various judgments, including a Supreme Court case, to support its conclusion. The Court cited precedent where excise dues under specific Acts could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. By analyzing the legal provisions and precedents, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice issued under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act for recovering penalties imposed under the Foreign Trade Act.