9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1109 - HC - CustomsRecovery of Validity of Audit Consultative Letter issued as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - pre-notice consultation - import of Horse Feed - exemption from payment of IGST Duty? - HELD THAT - As no final decision has been taken till date by the respondent as to whether a notice contemplated under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 has to be issued to the petitioner or not with regard to the recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the question of entertaining this writ petition, at this stage, will not arise as the petitioner has approached this Court pre-maturely. However, the respondent will have to necessarily give due consideration on merits and in accordance with law to the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition that the horse feed is exempted from payment of IGST Duty. This writ petition is disposed of on the ground that the writ petition has been filed pre-maturely.
Issues:
Challenge to Audit Consultative Letter under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding payment of differential duty on imported Horse Feed exempted from IGST Duty. Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to Audit Consultative Letter The petitioner contested the Audit Consultative Letter dated 26.12.2022, alleging a demand for differential duty of Rs.2,08,24,864/- with interest under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent claimed that the petitioner wrongly availed exemption from IGST Duty on imported Horse Feed in 2021. Issue 2: Pre-notice Consultation Requirement The Audit Consultative Letter was deemed a pre-notice consultation before issuing a formal notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of dues. The petitioner argued that Horse Feed falls under the definition of 'cattle' as per various Acts and is exempt from IGST Duty based on a notification by the Government of India. Issue 3: Denial and Contentions The petitioner strongly denied the respondent's claim, citing legal definitions of 'cattle' and specific notifications exempting Horse Feed from IGST Duty. The Court noted that no subsequent notice had been issued post the pre-notice consultation, emphasizing that interference at this stage was premature. Issue 4: Premature Filing of Writ Petition The Court disposed of the writ petition as premature, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's contentions on merits and in accordance with the law. The decision on issuing a formal notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was to be made after due consideration of the petitioner's arguments. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petition as premature but instructed the respondent to evaluate the petitioner's contentions regarding the exemption of Horse Feed from IGST Duty before deciding on issuing a formal notice under the Customs Act. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough review of the matter in line with legal provisions.
|
