9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of second respondent to issue demand notice barred by limitation.
Summary: The petitioner was informed through a demand notice about the erroneous payment of drawback amount for exported items, directing payment within fifteen days. The petitioner raised the objection that the notice was barred by limitation, asserting lack of jurisdiction for the second respondent to issue the notice. Despite this objection, the second respondent called for an enquiry, leading to the sole issue in this case. Upon hearing arguments from both sides and examining the evidence, the court noted that the petitioner had raised the crucial point of limitation in their explanation submitted later. The court opined that the absence of explicit mention of the limitation issue did not preclude the petitioner from raising it during the enquiry. Consequently, the court decided to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry, allowing them to raise the limitation issue along with other objections. The court's decision was to instruct the petitioner to attend the enquiry, enabling them to raise the limitation issue, and proceed accordingly. The respondents were directed to consider all objections, including the limitation point, and provide new hearing dates. The court emphasized that if the limitation point raised by the petitioner was legally valid, it should be addressed first. No costs were awarded, and a related application was dismissed as a result of the judgment.
|
