Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (1) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was received from the Petitioner, personal hearings were given on 17.2.2007, 20.12.2007 and 24.12.2007, by letter dated, 12.12.2007. However, the Petitioner did not appear for the personal hearing on the said dates. Thereafter, the Original-in-Order, dated 27.03.2008 was passed. The said order sent by the Respondent Department to the Petitioner was returned undelivered, with an endorsement 'left' on 17.04.2008 and consequently, the impugned detention notice came to be passed, in terms of the provisions of the Act. The Petitioner failed to receive the postal communication to evade the payment of dues - Further, there is no bona fide reason stated by the Petitioner in the affidavit for refusal of receipt of the said Original-in-Order, dat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter, the impugned detention notice, dated 25.01.2011 came to be issued by the 4th Respondent on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to pay a sum of ₹ 2,63,000/- towards fine and penalty, confirmed under Order-inOriginal No.7575/2008, dated 27.03.2008. The Petitioner has not received the said Order-in-Original, dated 27.3.2008, till the impugned detention notice was passed. 4. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned detention notice was issued, without serving a copy of the Order-in-Original No.7575/2008, dated, 27.03.2008, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned detention notice is liable to be quashed. 5. The learned standing counsel for the Respondents would s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder was communicated to the Petitioner by speed post, which was returned undelivered, with an endorsement 'left' on 17.04.2008 and therefore, the impugned detention notice was issued to the Petitioner on 25.01.2011 and the same was received. But, however, without challenging the said Original Order dated, 27.03.2008, the Petitioner has challenged only the order dated, 25.01.2011. The Respondent Department had issued the impugned detention notice to recover the dues from the Petitioner in exercise of the power conferred under the provisions of the Customs Act and hence, this Writ Petition deserves no consideration by this Court. 7. The learned standing counsel for the Respondents has relied on the decisions reported in 2000 (126) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ary is proved, is that the service shall be deemed to have been properly effected when a letter is properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post is not under dispute. No other attempt has been made to prove the contrary. The endorsement 'left' is not sufficient to prove the contrary. Apart fro it, a reading of the section indicates that the proof to the contrary can only be limited to proving that the service had not been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. We find no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there has been proper service notice. The Writ Petition was rightly dismissed. This appeal fails and it is dismissed. 8. Reliance was also placed on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reafter, the Original-in-Order, dated 27.03.2008 was passed. The said order sent by the Respondent Department to the Petitioner was returned undelivered, with an endorsement 'left' on 17.04.2008 and consequently, the impugned detention notice came to be passed, in terms of the provisions of the Act. The Petitioner failed to receive the postal communication to evade the payment of dues. Further, there is no bona fide reason stated by the Petitioner in the affidavit for refusal of receipt of the said Original-in-Order, dated 27.03.2008. 10. In fine, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the decision cited supra, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was no proper service of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates