2016 (7) TMI 861 - HC - Customs

Recovery of duty-drawback granted earlier - show cause notice was not issued - The staff, who was incharge of the despatch, has given the date one day prior to the date of notice. There is no postal acknowledgement produced to show that the notices were received by the petitioner. Copy of the Despatch Register has been produced and in the said sheet of paper, name of the petitioner is shown in Serial No.6, though there is no signature and seal despatched on . There is no date and the date has been mentioned on the top of the page. Held that - It cannot be disputed that the respondent Department have computerized all their activities and the filing procedure has been fully automized, remittances are received by e-payment and they are fully in tune with the concept of e-governance, as propounded by the Government of India. If such is the case, this Court fails to understand why they should follow the archaic practice of maintaining manual despatch book, which do not contain the required particulars. They could not be produced before any court to substantiate that notices or orders have been served on the assessees. In the light of the discrepancies pointed out and the fact that there is no acknowledgement produced, though it may be a fact that the impugned order has been received by the petitioner in the same address, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be given one more opportunity. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order without show-cause notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the second respondent dated 11.03.2016, which set aside the petitioner's drawback and directed payment of a specific amount along with interest. The main contention was the lack of a show-cause notice before passing the order. The respondent produced the original file, revealing that notices were sent on various dates for a personal hearing regarding the recovery of drawback for non-realization of export proceeds. However, discrepancies were found in the despatch dates and lack of proof of receipt by the petitioner.

Observations:
The High Court noted the Department's advanced computerized processes contrasting with the outdated manual despatch book system. The court emphasized the importance of automating despatch procedures to ensure proper service of notices and orders to taxpayers, emphasizing the need for adequate proof of service. The discrepancies in the despatch process and the lack of acknowledgment raised concerns about the effectiveness of the current system.

Decision:
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2016. The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent was directed to issue a notice to the petitioner, provide an opportunity for a personal hearing, and subsequently pass orders based on merits and in accordance with the law. The Court did not impose any costs in this decision.