TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Settlement Commission was correct in holding that the settlement application was inadmissible for want of compliance with clause (a) of the first proviso to section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the relevant bill of entry had not been filed before the show cause notice. (ii) Whether the impugned order was vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice because it relied on undisclosed reports.
Issue (i): Whether the Settlement Commission was correct in holding that the settlement application was inadmissible for want of compliance with clause (a) of the first proviso to section 127B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the relevant bill of entry had not been filed before the show cause notice.
Analysis: Clause (a) of the first proviso to section 127B(1) requires that the applicant must have filed a bill of entry, shipping bill, bill of export, baggage declaration, or equivalent document, and that a show cause notice must have been issued in relation to such document. The Court held that the provision does not require the bill of entry to precede the show cause notice as an independent condition. The admitted facts showed that the relevant bill of entry was filed before the settlement application and that the goods covered by both bills of entry were the subject matter of the show cause notice. The Commission therefore misread the statutory condition and adopted an unduly restrictive view inconsistent with the settlement scheme.
Conclusion: The finding of inadmissibility on this ground was unsustainable and against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice because it relied on undisclosed reports.
Analysis: The record showed that the Settlement Commission referred to reports dated 1 March 2016 which were not supplied to the petitioner. Reliance on material not disclosed to the affected party deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to meet the material used against it. The Revenue did not dispute non-supply of those reports. The resulting order was therefore contrary to fair play and natural justice.
Conclusion: The impugned order was vitiated by breach of natural justice and was liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the rejection of the settlement application was quashed, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration by the Settlement Commission in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A settlement application under section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be rejected by reading clause (a) of the first proviso as requiring the bill of entry to be filed before the show cause notice, and any order founded on undisclosed material violates natural justice.
TaxTMI 
