The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Pvt. Ltd.

3.The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, 4^th Floor, 13, Vilathaladas Thackersay Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-4000020. ... Appellants 1 to 3 / Respondents 1, 2 & 4

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.M/s.Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Shri.V.Chandran, 2A, 2^nd Floor, Chandrika Chambers, No.4, Antony Street, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. ... 1^st Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶12

1/5

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.A(MD) No.1436 of 2023

¶15

2.Chief Engineer / Mech / Coal,

¶16

Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited, II Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... 2^nd

¶17

... 2^nd Respondent / 3^rd Respondent

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.04.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.8021 of 2022.

¶19

For Appellants : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

¶20

For Respondent : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan for R1

¶21

ORDER

¶22

( Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶23

The revenue is on appeal questioning the order dated 19.04.2023

¶24

made in W.P.(MD)No.8021 of 2022 filed by the first respondent herein.

¶25

The first respondent herein had purchased the coal in high seas

¶26

and sold the same in favour of TANGEDCO. The sale is also a high seas sale. The imports were released for home consumption based on

¶27

2/5

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.A(MD) No.1436 of 2023

¶30

provisional assessment. The customs authority did not pass a final assessment order. The first respondent herein felt aggrieved by the delay in passing the final order of assessment. It appears that the writ petitioner's security deposit has been withheld by TANGEDCO on this score. Hence, they filed W.P.(MD)No.8021 of 2022. The learned single Judge without going into the merits of the case directed the customs authority to finalise the assessment within one month. This direction is put to challenge in this writ appeal.

¶31

The learned standing counsel for the customs submitted that the investigation by DRI into the subject transaction is pending and that is why, they are not able to finalise the assessment. In normal circumstances, we would have definitely accepted this explanation and set aside the direction given by the learned single Judge. But we are unable to do so in the case on hand for more reasons than one. The cause of action dates back to 2014-15. More than a decade has passed. It is for DRI to expedite the proceedings at their end. We are therefore of the view that the learned single Judge cannot be faulted for having directed the customs authority to finalise the assessment. We also notice that the

¶32

3/5

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.A(MD) No.1436 of 2023

¶35

writ appeal itself was filed in the year 2023 and more than two years

¶36

have elapsed since then. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances, we extend the time for finalizing the assessment by four more months from today.

¶37