Disposed

M/S Technology Next through Its Proprietor Sh. Ashim Gupta v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Acc Import, New Custom House New Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Mar 2024W.P.(C)/2674/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner complained of inordinate delay in adjudicating customs duty proceedings. The court directed the respondent authority to dispose of the pending appeal within six weeks after giving a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the adjudicating authority to dispose of the proceedings within six weeks after giving an opportunity of personal hearing.

M/S Technology Next through Its Proprietor Sh. Ashim Gupta… — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment delivered on: 14.03.2024

¶4

W.P.(C) 2674/2024

¶5

M/S TECHNOLOGY NEXT THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH. ASHIM GUPTA ..... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ACC IMPORT, NEW CUSTOM HOUSE NEW DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhil Krishna Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Ms. Maninder Kaur and Mr. Ayush Mittal, Advocates

¶10

For the Respondents: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with Mr. Anand Pandey and Mr. Ritivik Saha, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.

¶11

CORAM:-

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent to sanction and grant refund of excess duty of Rs.8,42,518/-.

¶16

Petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of internet

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

W.P.(C) 2674/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶19

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 7.03.2024 14:54:16

¶20

networking equipment.

¶21

The Petitioner vide Bill of Entry No. 5709318 dated 16.11.2019 had imported networking equipment whereby the Assessing Authority changed the classification for certain items, thereby attracting a larger percentage of customs duty than the previous classification.

¶22

In view of the same, Petitioner had requested the Assessing Authority to reassess the Bill of Entry and issue a speaking order. However, the Assessing Authority neither reassessed the Bill of Entry nor passed any speaking order. Further, Petitioner paid Rs.8,42,518/as customs duty to clear the consignment.

¶23

Aggrieved by such assessment, the Petitioner filed an appeal. The said appeal was decided vide order dated 31.10.2022 wherein the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority with directions to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent submits that the adjudicating proceedings are still pending before the competent authority and assures that the same shall be disposed of expeditiously.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order in appeal was passed on 31.10.2022 and till date the adjudicating authority has not disposed of the proceedings. He further submits that the impugned

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

W.P.(C) 2674/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶28

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 7.03.2024 14:54:16

¶29

order which records that the Notification dated 10.12.2019 was made effective from 01.01.2020 seems to suggest that the bill of entry lodged by the petitioner was filed after the Notification came into force. He submits that bill of entry was filed on 16.11.2019 before the Notification admittedly came into force on 01.01.2020.

¶30

In view of the submissions of learned counsel for respondent, the petition is disposed of directing the adjudicating authority to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously within a period of six weeks from today after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶31

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶32

It is clarified that it would be open to the petitioner to avail of such further remedies as may be permissible in law in case petitioner is aggrieved by any decision taken by the respondents.

¶33

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶34

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶35

MARCH 14, 2024 ‘ rs’

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

W.P.(C) 2674/2024 Page 3 of 3

¶38

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 7.03.2024 14:54:16

M/S Technology Next through Its Proprietor Sh. Ashim Gupta v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Acc Import, New Custom House New Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Technology Next through Its Proprietor Sh. Ashim Gupta v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Acc Import, New Custom House New Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shantanu Mandal Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S 3 Shades Events Trhough Its Proprietor Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Atul Kumar Garg Vs High Court of Delhi, through Registrar General

M/S Paul Garments Vs Kali Charan @ Mukesh

M/S Bryogen Pharmaceuticals Pvt. L.Td., Vs Union of India & Anr.

Al Amin Investments Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle International Tax 1(1)(1) Delhi & Anr.

Prashant Gupta Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Kuljit Singh & Anr. Vs Guru Nanak Institute of Management and Information Technology & Ors.

M/S 3 Shades Events Trhough Its Proprietor Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Goyal Metal Industries , Proprietor Jai Prakash Gupta Vs Principal Commissiner of Gst, Department of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi

Realsteel Tyre Company (India) Vs the Principal Commissioner of GST

M/S Supreme Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax North Delhi

Rajkumar Singhal, Sole Proprietor Shri Balaji Agro Industries Vs the Goods and Services Tax Network & Ors.

Ethos Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner Department of Trade and Taxes & Anr.