Dismissed

M/s.Thiru Rani Logistics Pvt. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs

Madras HC13 Nov 2017WP/24152/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a container freight station, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to refund excess cost recovery charges. The Court dismissed the plea, noting the petitioner failed to question the direction to pay dues up to 30.09.2016 issued in a previous proceeding. Since the prior representation had already been considered, issuing a second writ to direct consideration of the new represent

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with no costs; the petitioner is free to pursue the representation dated 01.02.2017 before the 1st respondent.

M/s.Thiru Rani Logistics Pvt. Vs Chief Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.11.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.24152 of 2017

¶6

M/s.Thiru Rani Logistics Pvt. Ltd., No.1, New North Ring Road Madhavaram, Chennai 600 110. Rep.by its Authorized Signatory Shri P.Manivasagam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Chief Commissioner of Customs Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. 2.The Commissioner of Customs Chennai VI Commissionerate Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents and more particularly the 1 st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2017 for refund of excess cost recovery charges collected from them in accordance with law.

¶8

For Petitioner : Dr.S.Krishnanandh For Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran Senior Panel Counsel O R D E R

¶9

Heard Dr.S.Krishnanandh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶10

2.The writ petition has been taken up for final disposal, since pleadings are complete as the respondents have filed counter affidavit.

¶11

3.The petitioner seeks for a direction upon the 1^st respondent to consider his representation dated 01.02.2017 for refund of excess cost recovery charges collected from them. The

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

petitioner is a container freight station. Earlier they had filed a representation on 29.03.2016 requesting for waiver from payment of cost recovery charges for the period during which officers were not posted. According to the petitioner, they had paid excess amount of Rs.11,79,412/-. The said representation was pending and since orders were not passed on the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.20828 of 2016, which was disposed of by directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame. Pursuant to which, an order has been passed on 27.09.2016 granting the petitioner partial relief i.e. with prospective effect from 01.10.2016 subject to the condition that the petitioner pays cost recovery charges upto 30.09.2016. The petitioner has complied with the said condition imposed in the order dated 27.09.2016.

¶14

4.As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has not questioned the order dated 27.09.2016 in so far as it directs the petitioner to pay the cost recovery charges upto 30.09.2016. Thus, having allowed the said order to attain a finality, now the petitioner seeks for a direction upon the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 01.02.2017 submitted before the 1^st respondent. I find the said representation is verbatim the same as that of the earlier representation which was considered and orders have been passed. The only difference that appears to be is the amount which the petitioner claims to have been paid as excess amount is different. In any event, since already the petitioner's representation has been considered and orders passed, the question of issuing a second writ of mandamus to direct the representation to be considered, cannot be acceded to.

¶15

5.At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vijal Marine Services V. Commissioner of Customs & C. Ex., Goa, 2016 (337) E.L.T. 335 (Bom.), wherein the appellant sought for refund of the cost recovery charges paid under protest to the Customs authorities, the Division Bench held that since the appellant therein did not file any appeals against the demands confirmed for the charges/cost, the appellant cannot be allowed to circumvent confirmed demand by way of refund.

¶16

6.It appears that the present writ petition is to reopen the earlier proceedings. In this factual background, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in issuing a writ of mandamus has sought for by the petitioner. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from pursuing their representation dated 01.02.2017 before the 1^st respondent and it is for the 1^st respondent to take appropriate decision on such representation.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

7.With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Sgl
To
1.Chief Commissioner of Customs
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.
2.The Commissioner of Customs
Chennai VI Commissionerate
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.
+1cc to Mr.B.Sathis sundar, Advocate SR.No.80410
+1cc to Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Advocate SR.No.80298
W.P.No.24152 of 2017
SV(CO)
GN(30/11/2017)

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Thiru Rani Logistics Pvt. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Thiru Rani Logistics Pvt. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl.Ambika Stores, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Mark Engineers Vs the Assistant Commissioner

S.P.Santhanam Vs Ms.Thenmozhi

Goodwill Textile Mills Pvt.Ltd Vs Small Industries Promotion

M/S Mercantile Impex Vs the Customs and Central Excise

Vs the Deputy Commercial