9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Group of Companies has not been established. It is in these circumstances that addressing the communication to the Respondent No.2 was not justified. The communication which we have reproduced above informs the Society that M/s Surlux Medicare is owner of the Flat No.58 and that has failed to pay penalty of ₹ 2 crore and Redemption Fine of ₹ 2.81 crore imposed by the order in original. That is how the recovery action under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been initiated. - Writ Petition succeeds. The communication dated 29.05.2013 addressed by the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.2 is set aside. - Decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 1860 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2014 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And A. K. Menon,JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. M. M. Vashi , Ms. Prachi and Mr. S. M. Sharma For the Respondents : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. J. B. Mishra ORDER P. C. 1. By this Writ Petition the Petitioners are praying for a writ of mandamus or any writ, order or direction of that nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent No.1 to withdraw the letter dated 29.05.2013 (Annexure-H to the Wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the Petitioner No.1. Therefore, the communication dated 29.05.2013 should be withdrawn by him. However, there is no response to this request that is why the Petitioners have approached this Court. 4. The communication at the level of the Commissioner of Customs and stated to be of 29.05.2013 is referred to in the Society's letter dated 07.06.2013 addressed to the Petitioner No.2. That is at page 38 Annexure-G to the Writ Petition. Annexure-H is a copy of the letter dated 29.05.2013 addressed by the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.2, which reads as under: Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Import ) Tax Recovery Cell, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar , Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099. F.No.S /3-MISC-09/ 1213/ TRCACC. Dated 29.05.2013 To, The Secretary/ Chairman, Chhadva Premises Coop Society Limited, Chhadva Apartments, Near Diamond Garden, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur , Mumbai-400071. Sir/ Madam, Sub :Recovery of pending Govt. dues from M/s Surlux Medicare, owner of Flat No.58, 5th Floor, Chhadva Premises Cooperative Society Limited, Chhadva Apartments, Near Diamond Garden, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur , Mumbai-400071-reg. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Companies called Surlux Group of Companies. The affidavit in reply and paragraph 6 onwards would indicate as to how these are Group Entities/ Companies and under the common management. There is a clear attempt, therefore, not to allow the Respondent No.1 and particularly the Department of Customs to recover its dues. It has been stated that M/s Surlux Medicare (it is a unit of M/s Surlux Mediquip Limited ) and which in turn part of Surlux Group of Companies. Mr.Jetly has tried to demonstrate as to how there is interconnection and that Group Companies have together defaulted in payment of the Government dues. In such circumstances the attempt of the Petitioners is to somehow stall the recovery proceedings and this should not be permitted by this Court. For all these reasons it is submitted that the writ jurisdiction which is equitable and discretionary should not be exercised to assist the parties like the Petitioners. The Writ Petition, therefore, be dismissed. 7. Having heard both sides and perusing with their assistance the Writ Petition and all annexures thereto, so also, the affidavit in reply we are not in agreement with Mr.Jetly that the exercise which the Customs Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is a statement recorded of Mr.Sarpotdar , General Manager of Surlux Group of Companies and it is on that basis it has been stated in the affidavit in reply that even the Petitioner No.1 owes its present existence to this Mr.Sarpotdar . It is this Mr.Sarpotdar who made the application for recalling the order of winding up and for revival of the Petitioner No.1. From this alone and without anything more we would not be in position to hold that there is a close connection or that the entire import was at the instance of the Group Companies and that is how the Petitioner No.1 was involved. The Respondent No.1 will have to adopt appropriate proceedings in the event it desires to now support his conclusions and which are stated to be based on the record. For the present we cannot proceed to hold that the Petitioner No.1 which is stated to be owner of the Flat No.58 could be deprived of its right, title and interest therein and particularly to transfer the flat in favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The connection between the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and with the alleged Group of Companies has not been established. It is in these circumstances that addressing the communication to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
