9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act was recorded wherein he submitted that the currency seized from him was not at all tainted and the same was being brought to Beawar for purchase of a plot. The petitioner denied that the currency was the sale proceeds of smuggled silver. However, the second respondent Commissioner (Customs), Jaipur vide his order dated 26-3-1996 confiscated the currency amounting to Rs. 10,49,000/-. Being aggrieved with the order of confiscation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Central Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the CEGAT) which was numbered as C/166-167/96-NB of 1996. This appeal was allowed vide order dated 24th of July, 1998 (Annexure-A). Consequently the order of absolute confiscation regarding Indian Currency of Rs. 10,49,000/- was set aside by the CEGAT. Thereupon the petitioner approached the second respondent and other functionaries of the Customs Department for handing over the currency to him but there was no response. Again the petitioner sent a notice by way of demand of justice to the second respondent on 22nd of October, 1998 under Registered Post. Inspite of notice of demand of justice, the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the order dated 26-3-1996 passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur which was later set aside by the CEGAT vide order dated 24-7-1998. It is seen from the order passed by the CEGAT that statement of Shri Rang Lal, the petitioner herein was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and in his statement he submitted the currency was for the purchase of a plot. The statement was made on 29-3-1995. He denied the sale of smuggled silver. Shri Rajesh Jain was the owner of the van. In his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, this person Rajesh Jain has submitted that he was the owner of the Maruti van and Shri Rang Lal borrowed his van for going to Mewar. He denied the knowledge of use of the van in transporting the silver by Shri Rang lal. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after the adjudication, the Commissioner passed the order dated 26th of March, 1996. The CEGAT after considering the rival submissions passed the order as follows :- "Thereafter on 29-3-95, i.e. almost after two years, statement of Shri Rang Lal under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded by the Customs authorities and in his statement he denied that curre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no sufficient evidence on record to prove the allegation made against the petitioner. Consequently, the CEGAT allowed the appeals and the order passed by the Commissioner, Customs confiscating the currency amounting to Rs. 10,49,000/- was set aside. 7.In the writ petition, an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner herein along with certain documents. In the additional affidavit, it is categorically stated that the petitioner was being assessed for tax by the Income Tax Officer 'A' Ward, Ratlam under G.I.R. No. R-1056. It is also stated that the petitioner is a permanent resident of House No. 101, infront of Jain School. Sangod Road, Ratlam (M.P.) and that he had filed regular returns up to assessment year 1993-94 and had been paying the tax regularly since 15 years prior to the assessment year 1993-94. It is submitted that one Shri P.C. Hadia of Income Tax Department had issued an authorisation under Section 193(1)(A) of the Income Tax Act regarding the cash amount of Rs. 10,49,000/- The petitioner had on 24-6-1993 informed the said officer in writing that the petitioner was regularly assessed by the Income Tax Officer, Ratlam (M.P.). In support of the said contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our feels I am prepared to attend your office. Thanking you." 8.On 18-1-1999, the Deputy Director, Income Tax, Indore issued summons under Section 131-1A of the Income Tax Act to the petitioner regarding seizure of Indian currency amounting to Rs. 10,49,000/- from the petitioner on 5-5-1993. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the summon dated 18-1-1999 as Annexure-D. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India vide order dated 22nd of February, 2000 directed the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal to take necessary action and send a report within 20 days in respect of grievance raised by the petitioner vide his application dated 27th of December, 1999. Photo copies of the application dated 27th of December, 1999 as well as the order dated 22nd of February, 2000 are placed on record as Annexure-E and F respectively. It is also pertinent to notice that the order passed by the CEGAT in C/166-167/96-NB(DB), dated 31-8-1998 was not taken on appeal by the department and that the said order has become final and conclusive. When this order was brought to the notice of Shri Bhanwar Bagri, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, he submitted that in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ of mandamus should issue ex debito justitiae to compel the Income Tax Officer to carry out the directions given to him by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have also held that the High Court would be clearly in error if it refuses to issue a writ on the ground that no manifest injustice had resulted from the order of the Income-tax Officer in view of the error committed by the Tribunal itself in its order. Such a view is destructive one of the basic principles of the administration of justice. 10.In a very recent judgment Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = (2000) 1 SCC 545, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have discussed and decided the case as under :- "It was contended by Mr. Dave that the applicants are not liable to pay any duty as the goods were not cleared by the respondent and they were subsequently confiscated and sold by the respondent and, therefore, the applicants cannot be said to have imported the goods. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Additional Solicitor General that the import of the goods was by the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of any amount in these applications. No doubt of any amount in these applications. No doubt it would be open to the applicant to initiate such an action if it feels that the loss suffered by it is more than Rs. 33.04 lakhs. Merely because it is open to the applicant to initiate such an action it would not be just and proper to refuse the claim made in these applications as in any case the applicant is entitled to return of the money value of the goods which were illegally confiscated by the respondent. Even though the applicant has claimed interest @ 21% we so not think it proper to award interest at such a high rate and considering the facts, and circumstances of the case it would be in the interest of justice if the respondent is directed to return the amount of Rs. 33.04 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% from 1-2-1989 till the date of payment as the Collector by his order dated 31-1-1989 had held that the goods were properly described and the import was legal." 11.In our opinion, this Court while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
