Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Customs

warehouse keeper not liable to pay Customs duty - right of warehouse keeper to recover warehousing charges from sale proceeds appears superior to right of Revenue to recover customs duty – Refund ordered with interest and costs : Delhi HC

THE Petitioner has a warehouse in Faridabad , Haryana. On 1st March, 2001 certain garments imported by M/s. Kushang Apparels were warehoused in the petitioner's warehouse. Despite the warehouse period, in terms of Section 61 of the Customs Act, expiring on 28th February, 2002 the customs authorities did not initiate action under Section 72 of the Act requiring the owner to pay the customs duty failing which the goods could be sold to recover the customs duty. Meanwhile, the petitioner, acting under Section 63(2) of the Act, sought to put the goods to sale by way of auction. After four failed attempts at getting the minimum value price fixed by the customs authorities, the goods were finally sold by auction with the consent of the customs authorities on 31st August, 2004 The amount recovered by way of auction was Rs.41,44,555 /-. According to the petitioner, he spent an amount of Rs.2 ,05,329 /- on the auction and this was deducted by him from the sum recovered in the auction.

the right of the petitioner here to recover the warehousing charges from the sale proceeds appears superior to the right of the Revenue to recover customs duty.

Income Tax

Proceedings in search cases cannot be used as an opportunity to either reopen concluded assessment or to reassess returned income : ITAT

THE facts of the case are on a Search & seizure operations carried out at the business premises of the assessee company on 18-3-02, in a notice u/s 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961, served on the assessee it was alleged that the assessee that a sum of Rs.54,45,000 /- which was received by the assessee from its sister concern M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, as application money was nothing but the assessee company's own money which was brought into the books in the garb of application money and the whole transaction was managed, sham and was a deliberate arrangement to subvert the interest of revenue.

Writ jurisdiction

Cause for action arose in Mumbai - Impugned order passed in Delhi - Petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy in Mumbai HC - writ dismissed in Delhi High Court

THE challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade ( ADGFT ), New Delhi remanding the case back to the to the JDGFT , Mumbai for de novo consideration.

The Court raised an initial objection to the maintainability of this writ in Delhi High Court since the proceedings emanated from the order passed by the JDGFT , Mumbai.

The Petitioner submits that this Court and only this Court, has jurisdiction to deal with this matter as the impugned order was passed in Delhi , only this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide this petition.

The Court did not agree.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements