Partly allowed

Vikas Kalra v. Deputy Commissioner (Recovery)

Delhi HC8 Jan 2019W.P.(C)/10326/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condoned a delay in filing the counter affidavit. It set aside a recovery notice and the order-in-original because the petitioner succeeded on the ground that customs officials offered an opportunity to be heard and the petitioner had allegedly discharged export obligations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned recovery notice dated 09.04.2014 and order-in-original dated 11.03.2014 set aside. Respondent directed to grant hearing opportunity. Deposited amounts tre

Vikas Kalra Vs Deputy Commissioner (Recovery) — Delhi HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 10326/2018

¶4

VIKAS KALRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Kotla Harshvardhan, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (RECOVERY) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.K.Enatoli Sema, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 08.01.2019

¶9

CM APPL.479/2019 (delay in filing the counter affidavit)

¶10

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 48 days’ in filing the counter affidavit is condoned and the same is taken on record.

¶11

The application is disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 10326/2018

¶13

By consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.

¶14

The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is with respect to the recovery notice dated 23.02.2018, issued by the respondent/customs department, claiming ₹3 lakhs towards customs duty payable. The petitioner contends that on 26.02.2014, the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has stated that the petitioner had discharged its export obligation and had, therefore, waived off the bond furnished by it. W.P.(C) 10326/2018 page 1 of 2

¶15

page 1 of 2

¶16

After notice was issued, respondents were granted time to file the counter affidavit, which is now on record. In the counter affidavit the customs authorities inter alia state that they are willing to grant an opportunity to the petitioner herein with respect to its liability, if any, as regards payment of customs duty, which is sought to be recovered in the impugned notice.

¶17

In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the view that the petition ought to succeed on that ground. The order –inoriginal dated 11.03.2014 and the impugned notice are hereby set aside. The respondent shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, for the purposes of which sufficient notice of hearing would be given to it. After considering the submissions of the petitioner, the adjudicating officer should pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶18

Consequently the amounts deposited by the petitioner shall be treated in satisfaction of the part deposit of the amount demanded.

¶19

The writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. The impugned recovery notice dated 09.04.2014 and the order in original dated 11.03.2014 is set aside.

¶20

The date fixed for listing of the writ petition i.e. 27^th February, 2019, is cancelled.

¶21

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶22

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶23

JANUARY 08, 2019 ‘hkaur’

¶24

W.P.(C) 10326/2018

¶25

page 2 of 2

Vikas Kalra v. Deputy Commissioner (Recovery)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kalra v. Deputy Commissioner (Recovery)

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

Manas Ranjan Mahapatra Vs National Book Trust and Anr.

Prabhjot Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Pooja Mahajan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ram Bahadur Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh. Bhuwan Chandra Upreti and Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pitam Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi & Anr.

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special RANGE-6, New Delhi & Anr.

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

R. S. Labour and Transport Contractor Vs Food Corporation of India and Anr.

Yogesh Thapar Thorough Gpa Rajni Soni Vs Prinicipal Commissioner & Addl. Secretary (Ministry of Finance ) & Ors.

Azure Power Rooftop Private Limited Vs Ministry of Railways & Ors.

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi & Anr.