9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 262 - HC - CustomsService of notice - proof of service of notice - section 153 of Customs Act - HELD THAT - In the precise context of the provision of section 153 of the said Act, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in P. BHOORMAL TIRUPATI VERSUS ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS 1973 (8) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS has held that section 153 of the said Act only requires that the notice shall be served by sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended, it does not require that effective service should be effected upon the person receiving it. Read with section 27 of the General Clauses Act, it becomes clear that when a document to be served is sent by registered post to the proper address with prepaid postage its service is deemed to be effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, unless the contrary is proved. We are unable to accept the Petitioners' contention that there has been no proper service as contemplated under section 153 of the said Act. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
Challenge to notice for outstanding dues, order for deregistration of contract, freezing of bank account for dues realization, validity of service of show cause notice and order in original, compliance with Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962, proof of service, change of address notification requirement, suppression of facts, dismissal of petition. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Notice and Order for Deregistration: The petition challenges a notice for outstanding dues and an order deregistering the contract. The petitioner argues that they were not served with the show cause notice or the order in original, as required by Section 153 of the Customs Act. The absence of valid service of notice is emphasized, questioning the authority's right to make the order without proper service. The petitioner relies on legal precedents to support their argument. 2. Validity of Service and Compliance with Section 153: The respondent contends that service was validly effected at the registered address of the petitioner. They argue that sending notices by registered A.D. complies with Section 153. The respondent accuses the petitioner of not updating their address and taking advantage of the situation. The respondent highlights the petitioner's lack of action in pursuing the matter and alleges misstatements and suppression of facts in the petition. 3. Change of Address Notification and Suppression of Facts: The court notes that the petitioner's factory was closed, and the premises were under the bank's possession. The court emphasizes the petitioner's duty to inform authorities of address changes, especially in ongoing cases like provisional assessment. The respondent's affidavit details the manner of service, indicating compliance with Section 153. The court finds the petitioner's vague references to the closed factory insufficient and holds them responsible for the situation. 4. Proof of Service and Legal Precedents: The court reviews legal precedents regarding service of notices and orders. It cites the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act regarding service by registered post. The court refers to case law supporting the notion that service by registered post deems delivery unless proven otherwise. The court dismisses the petitioner's contentions of improper service based on legal interpretations and factual evidence. 5. Dismissal of Petition: Based on the analysis of service compliance, address notification, legal precedents, and factual circumstances, the court dismisses the petition. The court finds no grounds to interfere with the order in original or the related communication. The dismissal is made in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with no costs imposed on either party. This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, detailing the arguments presented by both parties and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to dismiss the petition.
|
