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

1995 (9) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ute confiscation" of the seized goods, besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each (vide Ext. P. 4 order). Appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Ext. P. 6 Order). They moved for revision before the Government of India, but that revision also was dismissed (Ext. P 8 order).Thereafter they filed this Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the above three orders. Learned Single Judge, before whom the Original Petition came up, has referred this to a larger bench. 2.Petitioners raised mainly one point which, according to their learned counsel, is fatal to the confiscation proceedings. It is based on the fact that no notice was served on the petitioners under Section 124 of the Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice as contemplated therein is not completed by sending notice. Division Bench followed the dictum of the Supreme Court in Karasimhiah v. Singri Gowda (AIR 1966 S.C. 330). It was the proviso to Section 23(9) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951 which was considered in that decision, as per which proviso, a resolution could not be moved unless "atleast 15 days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution." Supreme Court considered the object in giving such notice under the said provision and it was held that "giving" is complete when it was delivered to the person, or atleast when it was offered to him if he refused to accept. In the context in which the notice was intended, the giving process must involve the deliver .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thout time limit goods would pile upto unmanageable limits. So the legislature provided that if confiscation proceedings are not commenced for six months the goods should be returned to the possession of the person concerned. Commencement of confiscation proceedings is the sending of notice envisaged in Sec.124 of the Act. Hence the legislature provided that if notice is not given within six months, then possession of the seized goods should be returned. If this is the purpose of the time limit of six months, then giving of notice must be understood as a process in which despatch of the notice is equally important. 8.We may point out another distinction. The expression used in Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act is that no order of adjud .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty; is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter; Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned, be oral." The above section provides two conditions for ordering confiscation of any goods or imposing any penalty. First condition pertains to giving notice informing him of the grounds. Second condition is, affording reasonable opportunity to him for making re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the strength of a second notice. Supreme Court has, in the decision referred to by the learned single judge [Asst. Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra - 1971 (1) S.C.C. 697] made a passing observation that Section 124 does not lay down any period within which notice is required and the period laid down in Section 110(2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of notice. The view that Section 124 is independent of Section 110 of the Customs Act has been adopted by the other High Courts (vide The Collector of Customs and Central Excise v. Amruthalakshmi - AIR 1975 Madras 43; M/s Mohanlal Devdanbhai v. M.P. Mondkar - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477 (SC) = AIR 1977 Bombay 320); Hemant Bahadur Lama v. Union of India - 1982 Cri .....

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