HOUSEFULL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED vs. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPT OF REVENUE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers

WP/11564/2012HC BombayHCBM01050467201221 December 2012Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SANKLECHA5 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that for the two orders-in-original dated November 22, 2012, and the order-in-original dated November 23, 2012, the assessee had admittedly filed appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which were pending. The court directed the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to dispose of these appeals and any stay applications expeditiously, preferably within 8 weeks. Regarding the 4 live bills of entry, the court accepted the statements made by the counsel for the revenue and the petitioner. The Assessing Officer was to intimate the grounds for doubting the declared value within 7 days, the petitioner was to reply within 3 days of receiving the intimation, and the adjudication order was to be passed within 7 days of receiving the reply, after a personal hearing. In view of these statements and directions, the court found that nothing further survived in the writ petition and disposed of it accordingly. The court also addressed a potential conflict of interest arising from a personal transaction involving one of the judges and the petitioner, with both parties agreeing to proceed with the current bench.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Housefull International Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging two orders-in-original dated November 22, 2012, and their corrigenda dated November 23, 2012, along with an order-in-original dated November 23, 2012, concerning 17 bills of entry. The petitioner also sought provisional release of goods related to 4 live bills of entry for which assessment orders were pending. For the orders already passed, the petitioner had filed appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which were pending. The court was informed of a personal transaction involving one of the judges and the petitioner's online portal, which occurred after the initial order was dictated but before it was transcribed. Both parties agreed to have the writ petition disposed of by the same bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition challenging orders-in-original when statutory appeals are pending before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of alternative remedy). 2. Whether the assessment of 4 live bills of entry can be expedited and provisional release granted? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner sought to challenge the orders-in-original and obtain provisional release for pending assessments. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue stated that for the orders-in-original already passed, appeals were filed and pending before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). - For the 4 live bills of entry, the Assessing Officer would intimate the grounds for doubting the value declared in writing within 7 days, as per Rule 12(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. - The petitioner would file a reply within 3 days of receiving the intimation. - The adjudication order would be passed within 7 days of receiving the reply, after a personal hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 12(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11564 OF 2012 Housefull International Ltd. ..Petitioner versus The Union of India, Through Secretary, Minister of Finance Dept of Revenue and Ors

..Respondents Mr. Jas Sanghvi with PDS Legal for the Petitioner Mr. S.P.Bharati for the Respondent. ............. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.

DATE : 21st December, 2012 P.C. :

Leave to amend to add the Commissioner of Customs(A) as party respondent. Amendment to be carried out during the course of the day.

This writ petition is filed to challenge two ordersinoriginal both dated 22.11.2012 with two corrigendum orders in respect thereof passed on 23.11.2012 and also the orderinoriginal dated 1/5

23.11.12 passed in respect of 17 bills of entry. The Petitioner is also seeking provisional release in respect of 4 live bills of entry on which the assessment order is yet to be passed.

As regards, two ordersinoriginal dated 22.11.2012 and orderinoriginal dated 23.11.2012 is concerned, admittedly the assessee has filed appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the same are pending.

Since the dispute is a recurring issue, we direct the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to dispose of the aforesaid appeal/stay application, if any, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today.

As regards the 4live bills of entry are concerned, Counsel for revenue states that the Assessing Officer shall intimate to the petitioner in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the 2/5

imported goods in terms of Rule 12(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 within a period of 7 days from today.

Counsel for the petitioner states that the reply in respect of the above intimation under Rule 12(2) shall be filed within a period of 3 days from receiving the intimation from the Assessing Officer. The Counsel for the revenue further states that the adjudication order would be passed after giving personal hearing to the petitioner, within 7 days of receiving the reply from the petitioner. The above statements of both the Counsel are accepted.

In view of the aforesaid statements, nothing survives in the petition and accordingly, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

After the above order was dictated on the 3/5

last day before Christmas Vacation i.e. 21.12.2012 in open Court, but before it was transcribed and signed, one of us (M.S.Sanklecha,J.) on reaching home saw a writing table delivered on 21.12.2012 at his home by the petitioners. On inquiry, he learnt that his son staying with him had booked on 03.12.2012 a writing table worth Rs.4,500/ on the petitioner's online portal. The amount of Rs.4500/ was paid by him by cheque on 04.12.2012 to the petitioners and the writing table was delivered on 21.12.2012 by the petitioners. The Court was closed for Christmas Vacation from 22.12.2012 to 02.01.2013. This bench was available only with effect from 07.01.2013.

In view of the above, the matter was placed on board in the Chamber on 7.1.2013 and the above facts were pointed out to the Advocates. They were specifically informed that in view of the above facts they had an option to get the Writ Petition disposed of by a Bench in which one of us (M.S.Sanklecha, J.) is not a member. However, 4/5

Counsel on both the sides stated that they have no objection for disposal of the Writ Petition by this Bench in terms of the order dictated in court on 21/12/2012.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) 5/5

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →