9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1571 - HC - CustomsCompromise and arrangements - Winding up Suits stayed on winding-up order - Claim against respondent company in Liquidation - rejection on the ground that the order dated 10.05.2011 was passed by the custom authorities without informing the Official Liquidator of the proceedings pending before it. Held that - similar issue decided in the case of Sales Tax Officer Versus Byford Ltd. 1982 (5) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI , where it was held that the recovery proceedings can be stayed by the company judge. But not the penalty proceedings - Since the facts of the present case, are similar to the facts of the cases cited above, hence once after inviting claim of the custom authority; asking it to file it in proper format with documents, the Official Liquidator should not have rejected it on grounds that it ought to have been given an opportunity to contest the custom duty/penalty levied upon the respondent company by Custom authorities; the duty/penalty having been levied upon the respondent company under the provisions of Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 by following a procedure established by law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Customs Authorities.
Issues:
Claim of Customs authorities against respondent company in liquidation rejected by Official Liquidator. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the rejection of the Customs authorities' claim of ?1,46,06,654 against the respondent company in liquidation by the Official Liquidator. The claim included custom duty of ?52.00 Lac, interest, and penalty. The Official Liquidator argued that the custom authorities did not inform them of the proceedings, despite the winding-up order being in place since 2008. 2. The Customs authorities alleged that they had informed the Official Liquidator about the claim and provided necessary documentation. The Official Liquidator had requested supporting documents from the Customs authorities to process the claim. However, the claim was rejected on the grounds of lack of information about the proceedings before the Commissioner of Customs. 3. The judgment referred to legal precedents to establish that the Official Liquidator should not have rejected the claim without considering it based on the law. Citing the case of S.V. Kondaskar v. V.M. Deshpande, the court emphasized that the winding-up court cannot interfere with assessment proceedings unless deemed expedient. The court also referred to Sales Tax Officer v. Byford Ltd. to highlight the limited jurisdiction of the company judge over tax matters. 4. The court concluded that the rejection of the Customs authorities' claim by the Official Liquidator was unjustified. The claim was made under the provisions of Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, following due legal procedures. Therefore, the court set aside the Official Liquidator's order and directed a proper examination of the claim in accordance with the law. 5. In light of the above analysis, the court issued directions to consider and examine the claim filed by the Customs authorities as per the law. The appeal was disposed of with the order to set aside the Official Liquidator's decision and proceed with a lawful assessment of the claim. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the court's decision in the case.
|
