9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction of like nature directing the respondents to release the goods of the petitioner and the goods vehicle carrying the said goods. The aforesaid order permitting amendment of writ petition was passed as it was pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that by an order dated November 4, 2011 tax and penalty of ₹ 1,94,412 each has been imposed. The petitioner had imported mobile phones and components and the consignment was cleared on payment of customs duty of ₹ 76,207 and ₹ 61,289, respectively on October 29, 2011. After the customs clearance, the goods were loaded on a goods carrier bearing registration No. DL-ILG- 5406. The said carrier lef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 3,88,824 consisting of VATat five per cent and penalty equal to the amount of VAT,i.e., ₹ 1,94,412 each. The said order is on a printed standardised format in which blanks had been filled up in hand writing. The said order is addressed to Inder Pal, i.e., the driver of the truck. It ignores the letter dated October 31, 2011 relied upon, submitted and filed by the petitioner. This letter dated October 31, 2011, is not disputed by the respondent and is on their record. It is the contention of the petitioner that this order has been passed without even giving notice to him. This is correct as the order does not record the presence of the petitioner and only records the name of the Inder Pal, the driver of the truck and states ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh. In the assessment/penalty order again it is not stated that goods were being transported without bills/proper documents, i.e., GR. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that along with the counter-affidavit they have filed copy of statement of Manoj Chauhan, and Rajinder Singh manager and owner of the transport company which are dated November 17, 2011 and November 18, 2011. Both of them have stated that the GR or goods receipt produced by the petitioner has not been issued by them and the stamp and signatures on the GR do not belong to any person working for the said company. They have stated that they have manual GR register and do not have computerised GR register. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, it is apparent, has proceeded with great haste and hurry in passing the order after they have come to know that the petitioner may be approaching the court. The petitioner was not even heard. We do not agree with the contention of the respondent that this court should not exercise writ jurisdiction in the present case in view of alternative remedy by way of appeal. The facts in the present case justify exercise of extra ordinary power. There is violation of principal of natural justice and otherwise also the orders show complete non-application of mind by the authorities concerned. The action and conduct of the respondents is arbitrary. In these circumstances, we have no option but to strike down and issue a writ of certiorari and q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
