Dismissed

Shiv Shakti Trading Company v. the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Anr.

Delhi HC3 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/7098/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held that no useful purpose served investigating evasion of service due to address discrepancies. Petitioner relegated to appellate remedy; Commissioner requested to hear appeal without limitation barrier if approached within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner relegated to appellate remedy; Commissioner to hear appeal without limitation bar if approached within two weeks.

Shiv Shakti Trading Company Vs the Commissioner of Customs… — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7098/2017

¶4

SHIV SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Anjali J. Manish and Mr.Sagar Rohatgi, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) & ANR.

¶7

..... Respondents Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R

¶9

% 03.07.2018

¶10

The petitioner’s complaint is that it was not served with a copy of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The respondent in these proceedings alleges that after the completion of the previous proceedings, when the order was made by the adjudicating authority, every effort was made to serve the petitioner at the last given address. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that even the Court record is discrepant with respect to the correct address, inasmuch as in most of the places the address is stated to be A-84FF, Saraswati Vihar and at another place the address is shown to be 147, A Block, Saraswati Vihar. This Court is of the opinion that prima facie the respondent cannot be faulted with in the manner the

¶11

petitioner alleges. At the same time, the respondent has stated fairly that every attempt was made to serve the petitioner at the given address. The respondent however alleges that the petitioner tried to evade the service of the impugned order.

¶12

Having regard to all the overall circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in investigating as to whether the petitioner intentionally evaded receiving the impugned order. It is a matter of fact that the recovery proceedings have been initiated and the petitioner’s remedy is only to appeal against the adjudicatory order.

¶13

In these circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to the appellate remedy; if it approaches the Commissioner within two weeks from today with an appeal, the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law, unhindered by the question of limitation. The Commissioner is requested to deal with all the contentions urged by the petitioner.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶15

Copy of this order be given dasti .

¶16

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶17

A. K. CHAWLA, J

¶18

JULY 03, 2018 ‘dc’

Shiv Shakti Trading Company v. the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shakti Trading Company v. the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.T.C. Vs Dharamvir Singh

Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospita Vs Workers Thru M.K.R.H.Karamchar

K.Krishna Kurup Vs M/S M.M.T.C. Ltd.

Nayyar Manzil (Jamia Nagar) Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) and Anr. Vs NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Gajendra Kumar Jha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex.Const.Krishan Kumar Vs UOI & Ors.

Power Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officor

All India Bank Officers Association Vs UOI & Anr.

R. L. Traders Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 47(1)

Ans Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi

Allied Integrated Society (Regd.) and Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Anuj Electricals Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

M/S Shiv Shakti Mandir Sanchalan Samiti Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Ors.

Windlass Online Stores Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of Customs Acc (Import) Igi & Ors.