NEERAJ JHANJI vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

PDF · subscribers
CUSAA/10/2009HC DelhiDLHC01166395200905 January 2012Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court, citing Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court noted that the appellant had bona fide filed the appeal in the Delhi High Court and had been pressing it, likely due to the Tribunal's location in Delhi. The Court acknowledged that the decision on the prayer for waiver/exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would be for the jurisdictional High Court to decide. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Neeraj Jhanji, filed a writ petition which was converted into an appeal before the Delhi High Court. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kanpur. The Delhi High Court, in a previous order dated 22.09.2010, raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction, citing the precedent in Suresh Desai & Associates v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 230 ITR 912, which states that appellate jurisdiction depends on the location of the authority that passed the original order. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court, claiming entitlement to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal had been pending, with a conditional stay order in effect and various directions issued, including a request for an enquiry report on customs officials.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kanpur? (Question of law, turning on principles of appellate jurisdiction). Assessee's contention: The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal to approach the jurisdictional High Court and claimed the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the present appeal bona fide. The Tribunal is located in Delhi, which was the reason for filing the appeal there. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the territorial jurisdiction or the withdrawal request.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~3 * m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA10/2009 NEERAJ JHANJI Appellant Through Mr. R. K. Handoo, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE Respondent Through Mr. R.C.S. Bhadoria, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

ORDER % 05.01.2012 a.. ^

1.

Vide order dated 09.11.2009 the present writ petition was converted and has been numbered as an appeal under the Customs Act.

2.

The order in original, i.e. first order, which was made the subject matter of challenge before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was passed by the Commissioner of the Customs, Kanpur.

3.

By order dated 22.09.2010 the Division Bench then hearing the matter, had raised the issue of territorial juri iction. In the case of Suresh Desai & Associates v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 230 ITR 912, it has been held that the appellate juri iction depends upon the location/place ofthe authority which had passed the order in tbe original. 11 4. Learned counsel for the appellant in these circumstances seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal with libertyto approach the juri ictional High Court. He submits that the appellant is entitled to benefit of Section 14 ofthe Limitation Act, 1963. 5. This writ petition was initially entertained and a conditional stay orderwaspassed, whichhas continued. Even afterthe order dated 22.09.2010, the appeal has remained pending and various orders/directions have been issued, including direction to the respondent to file a copy of the enquiry reportin respect of the custom % officials involved. c

6.

It is for the juri ictional High Court to decide the prayer for waiver/exclusion. However, it does appear that the appellant in the present case hadbona fidely filed the appeal inthis Court and has been pressing the same, asthe Tribunal is located in Delhi.

7.

With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as paeessed for. --U •— SANJIV KHANNA, J. R.V. EASWAR, J. JANUARY 05, 2012 b

More judgments on Section 14

All 685 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →