Dismissed

Global United Shipping India Private Limited v. the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax Division

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016WA/2606/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court writ appeal challenged the Kerala High Court's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a customs duty refund dispute. After reviewing the cause of action and orders originating in Chennai, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that the Kerala High Court had no jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed without prejudice to the appellant's right to statutory remedy before the appropriate jurisdiction.

Global United Shipping India Private Limited Vs the Deputy… — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 2606 of 2015 () IN WP(C).20136/2015

¶6

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT:

¶8

GLOBAL UNITED SHIPPING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 6TH FLOOR, ARAYBHANGI PINNACLE, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, PROMY GANGADHARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, LEGAL MANAGER, GLOBAL UNITED SHIPPING INDIA PVT.LTD., ARAYBHANGI PINNACLE, KADAVANTRA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX DIVISION, SERVICE TAX DIVISION, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN,

¶12

KATHRIKADAV, COCHIN-682 017.

¶13

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (REFUNDS),

¶14

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMES (PORT-EXPORT), CUSTOM HOUSE, NO.60, RAJAJAI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001.

¶15

3. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-II), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMES(APPEALS-II),

¶16

CUSTOM HOUSE, NO.60, RAJAJI SALAI,

¶17

CHENNAI-600 001.

¶18

R BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

¶19

R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶23

ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶24

W.A.No.2606 of 2015

¶25

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶28

1.Through this intra-court appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner, we are concerned with the only issue as to whether the learned single Judge erred in holding that the High Court of Kerala does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of disputes.

¶29

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Central Government Counsel.

¶30

3.After the institution of the writ appeal, a counter affidavit has been placed on record on behalf of the respondents through the Deputy Commissioner (Legal) in the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Cochin. We have gone through that counter affidavit sworn to by the deponent on 22.01.2016.

¶31

¶32

W.A.No.2606/2015

¶33

4.The crux of the issues revolves around the eligibility or otherwise, of the appellant for refund of customs duty paid through Exhibit P1. However, ultimately, he was not permitted to utilize the eligibility for refund of customs duty owing to the issue as to whether he had utilized CENVAT Credit. It would be inappropriate for us in writ jurisdiction, that too, through an intra-court appeal to go into that issue if the question of jurisdiction as answered by the learned single Judge stands.

¶34

5.The transactions on the basis of which the appellant/petitioner became liable to pay customs duty were in the Chennai Port. It is such levy that led to the request before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Chennai for refund. An appeal was carried to the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Chennai Commissionerate of Customs. The learned single Judge has noted incidentally, that Section 129(E) [129(A?)] of the Customs Act would provide the statutory appeal to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. That position notwithstanding, as already noted, the cause of action for the issue and the original order and appellate order were generated within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court

¶35

¶36

W.A.No.2606/2015

¶37

and therefore, the mere fact that the Service Tax authority involved in the matter is the Cochin Commissionerate does not bring any element of jurisdiction within the territorial limits of the Kerala High Court. Under such circumstances, we do not find our way to interfere with the decision of the learned single Judge holding that this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

6.Be that as it may, we may resolve that it would be appropriate that the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents are recorded. We do so.

¶39

In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the appellant taking recourse to statutory remedy before appropriate jurisdiction.

¶40

Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶41

Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A TO JUDGE

¶44

Global United Shipping India Private Limited v. the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Global United Shipping India Private Limited v. the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax Division

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

Lfa, Tdb Audit, Tvm Vs Secretary, Tdb

Suo Motu Vs Cochin Devaswom Board, Represented by Its Secretary

Sri.E.S.Kishore Vs the Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board

Nisheema Anulal Vs Kumari Kuriakose

M/S. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner,Commercial Taxes

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd Vs the State of Kerala