9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to communication demanding outstanding Government dues arising from an Order-in-Original; Failure to respond to show cause notice leading to duty liability; Consideration of factual statements in affidavit; Superintendent's failure to review petitioner's reply; Direction for respondents to refrain from acting on recovery notice; Imposition of costs on petitioners. Analysis: The petition under Article 226 challenged a communication demanding outstanding Government dues from an Order-in-Original. The petitioners failed to respond to the show cause notice, leading to duty liability confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioners filed a Special Civil Application, and the Assistant Commissioner's affidavit highlighted discrepancies in the duty demanded. The Court permitted the petitioners to respond to the recovery notice, but the Superintendent failed to review their reply, reiterating the duty payment demand. The Assistant Commissioner's clear factual statements and the petitioners' response indicated no liability to pay duty, leading to the Court's direction for the Superintendent to reconsider the matter. The Court acknowledged the Assistant Commissioner's statements and the petitioners' compliance with the recovery notice. The Central Government's counsel noted the petitioners' absence during the original proceedings, leading to the duty liability. The Court found substance in the counsel's argument but directed the respondents to refrain from acting on the recovery notice. The Court emphasized the need for petitioners to pay costs due to the two rounds of litigation caused by their initial non-appearance. In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents not to act on the recovery notice and to consider the Assistant Commissioner's affidavit statements. The petitioners were instructed to pay costs within a specified period. The Rule was made absolute with no additional costs imposed.
|
