Disposed

Triseva Pariwahan Services Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/6095/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding a customs duty dispute involving a transporter. The court directed the Appellate Tribunal to expedite hearing the matter if an appeal is filed by a specific date, noting the factual nature of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; Tribunal directed to hear appeal expeditiously if filed by March 4, 2018.

Triseva Pariwahan Services Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Trade… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6095/2017 & CM No.25295/2017

¶4

TRISEVA PARIWAHAN SERVICES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Mr. Ramanand Roy, Mr. Rohit Sharma& Mr. Vikram Kakkar, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 15.02.2018

¶10

Mr. Kamaldeep, Assistant Commissioner, is present along with relevant file. The Assistant Commissioner states that confirmations from consignors and consignees in the form of bank statements and original purchase/sale documents are required and necessary.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the consignees have written letter of confirmation, accepting the deliveries, contract with the consignor and the petitioner was engaged as a transporter. Raw rubber was a controlled commodity and certificate from the Rubber Board for transport and sale by the consignor to the consignee have been furnished. In 2012, notices were issued and 10 consignees had appeared and confirmed the aforesaid transactions. The consignees, who are residents outside Delhi, may not be now ready and willing to

¶12

come to Delhi.

¶13

On a suggestion given by the Court, learned counsel for the parties and the Assistant Commissioner agree that the petitioner would challenge the order dated 13.7.2006, as modified and amended in terms of inquiry reports dated 6.11.2011 and 8.11.2011 before the Appellate Tribunal. We may note that, pursuant to the said inquiry reports, an amount of approximately Rs.5,94,000/-, out of Rs.20,00,000/-, has been refunded to the petitioner.

¶14

This is rather a peculiar case as the petitioner had filed WP(C) No.10418/2006 in this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2010 recording that the VATO shall conduct an inquiry in respect of the consignment, which was seized from the premises of Container Corporation of India. The petitioner, it is stated, was the transporter engaged by the consignees, for the said consignment that had originated from Bangalore and Kerala and was meant for 17 parties located outside Delhi.

¶15

As the matter/issue is rather old and has been pending, we would request the Tribunal to take up the appeal for hearing expeditiously. We also clarify that the appeal if filed by 4th March,2018 would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. We are passing this order, accepting the prayer made by learned counsel for the parties, as we find that the disputes are factual and inquiry reports are in the nature of adjudication orders. Tribunal would also go into the question of interest if it is held that the petitioner is entitled

¶16

to refund.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of, without any order as to costs. CM No.25295/2017 is also disposed of. Dasti .

¶18

SANJIV KHANNA, J

¶19

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J

¶20

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 tp

Triseva Pariwahan Services Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Triseva Pariwahan Services Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Jain Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naya Samaj Appejay Parents Association and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Pradeep Chander Vs Indraprastha Power Gen. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Rakesh Choubey Vs Election Commission of India & Anr.

Balwant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahendar Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through the Secretary and Anr.

M/S Impressions Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Virender Kumar

Neeraj Pant Vs Public Work Department & Ors.

M/S Bhagwati Products Limited Vs Income Tax Officer

Rank Office Automation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Haryana Ship Breakers Ltd. Vs UOI and Anr.

M/S Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Salex Tax & Ors.

M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income

Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.