9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1017 - HC - CustomsClassification of imported goods - determination of rate of IGST - Assessment of the Bills of Entry - Assessment under particular head and not under the head which the petitioner had proposed to classify the goods - Held that - The petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest such decision. Therefore, unless a speaking order is passed, the petitioner would not be in a position to contest the levy of IGST under SI.No.453. There will be a direction to the second respondent to issue a show-cause notice and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order on merits - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment of Bills of Entry under incorrect head, classification dispute, opportunity to contest levy of IGST under specific notification. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the assessment of Bills of Entry filed under a particular head instead of the proposed classification of goods. The court acknowledged that such classification disputes fall under the purview of the Customs Act and cannot be resolved through a writ petition. However, noting the discrepancy in the assessment, the court directed the second respondent to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner. This notice would provide an opportunity for the petitioner to contest the imposition of IGST under a specific provision of a notification. The court emphasized the importance of a speaking order to enable the petitioner to effectively challenge the levy. Given that the imported goods were high-valued medical and diagnostic equipment, a prompt adjudication process was mandated. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions with the direction for the issuance of a show-cause notice and a personal hearing for the petitioner. The second respondent was instructed to pass a speaking order within a specified timeframe. The court emphasized the need for timely adjudication, setting a deadline for the completion of the process. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.
|
