2019 (1) TMI 732 - HC - Customs

Adjournment of the matter - Court refused to extend its beneficial jurisdiction to the appellants on the ground of the conduct of the appellants, particularly, the delay in approaching the Court - Held that - It is evident that the order dated July 14, 1987 was not directly challenged by way of the writ proceedings. Indeed, it was the Appellate Tribunal s order that was challenged and, by a side-wind, the original order of July 14, 1987 was sought to be questioned. Since the order dated July 14, 1987 was amenable to an appeal and the outcome in the appeal was amenable to a challenge before the Appellate Tribunal and the appellants herein exhausted their remedies in such regard, the original order could no longer be challenged in any manner or form without the intermediate orders (meaning, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order of the Appellate Tribunal) being found to be erroneous - In any event, the Single Bench also disbelieved the appellants contention that they had merely sought an adjournment on July 13, 1987 and had chosen to make no enquiries as to the fate of their matter thereafter. The order impugned does not call for any interference - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dated July 14, 1987 passed by Customs authorities through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Appellants' delay in approaching the Court. Dismissal of appeal by Appellate Tribunal. Disbelief of appellants' contention by Single Bench. Justification of Single Bench in not extending help due to appellants' conduct. Assessment of costs to be paid by appellants.

Analysis:
The appellants filed a petition in 2004 challenging an order passed by Customs authorities on July 14, 1987. They claimed they became aware of the order in 2002 and sought to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who refused to entertain it. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal citing receipt of the order by the appellants and their lack of diligence in following up on the matter. The Writ Court refused to entertain the case due to the delay in approaching the Court and the conduct of the appellants. The Court noted that the original order of July 14, 1987 was not directly challenged in the writ proceedings, and since the appellants exhausted their remedies with the Appellate Tribunal, the original order could not be challenged without proving errors in the intermediate orders. The Single Bench also disbelieved the appellants' claim of seeking an adjournment in 1987 and not following up on their matter. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order due to the appellants' conduct.

The Court emphasized that the Single Bench was justified in not providing any relief to the appellants considering their conduct. The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellants to pay costs to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority. Additionally, the Court highlighted the need to take action against the officials of the appellant for attempting to shield themselves behind dishonest statements regarding their awareness of the 1987 order. The judgment underscores the importance of diligence, timely action, and honesty in legal proceedings, and the consequences of failing to meet these standards in seeking judicial relief.