9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 735 - HC - CustomsDuty Drawback - No notice was given by the Revisional Authority to the petitioner that there was a defective filing - Revision Application was dismissed only on the ground that court fee of ₹1,000/- was not paid on time - HELD THAT - The petitioner is claiming a drawback claim of ₹31,04,845/-. A Revision Application was dismissed against which an appeal was also preferred, but the same was also dismissed. A Revision Application was preferred on 14th June, 2016. It appears that Revisional Authority has no Registry, which could point out the defect in filing. No defect could be pointed out in the year 2016; whereas the defect was only pointed out in the year 2018. The court fee of ₹1,000/- was paid on 18th April, 2018. Nonetheless, defect was pointed out on 20th March, 2018 and immediately thereafter, on 18th April, 2018 the court fee of ₹1,000/- was paid by the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that the Revision Application, which was preferred by the petitioner, was barred by any limitation. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Revisional Authority while deciding the Revision Application. Revision Application is revived at its original number and the same will be decided by the Revisional Authority on its own merits in accordance with law - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Revisional Authority dated 6th August, 2018 - Dismissal of Revision Application due to non-payment of court fee on time - Claim for drawback amounting to ?31,04,845 - Allegation of time-barred Revision Application - Lack of defect pointed out in filing in 2016 but highlighted in 2018. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Revisional Authority dated 6th August, 2018, which dismissed the Revision Application due to non-payment of court fee on time. The Revisional Authority rejected the Revision Application on the grounds that the court fee of ?1,000 was not paid on time, even though the petitioner had paid it on 18th April, 2018. The petitioner argued that a Larger Bench decision and a judgment of the Allahabad High Court stated that no court fee was required for a Revision Application. The petitioner had initially applied for a drawback claim which was denied, leading to the subsequent appeal and Revision Application. The Revisional Authority failed to point out any defects in the filing of the Revision Application in 2016, but only highlighted the issue in 2018. The High Court observed that the petitioner was claiming a drawback amount of ?31,04,845 and that the Revision Application was not time-barred as alleged by the Revisional Authority. The court noted that the defect in payment of court fee was pointed out in March 2018 and rectified by the petitioner in April 2018. The court emphasized that the Revision Application should not have been considered time-barred due to the payment of court fee on 18th April, 2018. The Revisional Authority's failure to appreciate this aspect led the High Court to quash and set aside the order of 6th August, 2018. As a result, the High Court revived the Revision Application at its original number and directed the Revisional Authority to decide it on its merits, in accordance with the law and evidence on record. The court instructed the Revisional Authority to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity to be heard, preferably within eight weeks from the date of the High Court's order. The petitioner was directed to approach the Revisional Authority on a specified date for further proceedings. The High Court allowed and disposed of the writ petition with these directions.
|
