TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes prompt resolution, deems revival of recovery unjust, supports unfair treatment claim, directs stay.</h1> The court acknowledged the delay in the authorities' decision on the customs duty demand challenge, emphasizing the need for prompt resolution. As the ... Recovery proceeding stayed by High Court till adjudication completed by department Issues:Challenging customs duty demand under Duty Exemption Scheme; Non-fulfillment of export obligations; Delay in decision by authorities; Revival of recovery proceedings despite court order; Unjust initiation of recovery proceedings.Analysis:The petitioner challenged a customs duty demand of Rs. 27,33,905 claiming it was arbitrary due to alleged fulfillment of export obligations. The court directed the petitioner to submit supporting documents for review. The recovery of the demand was stayed for three months or until authorities decided on the claim, whichever was earlier. However, the authorities failed to decide within the stipulated period, leading to the revival of recovery proceedings, which the petitioner deemed unfair and unjust.The court acknowledged the delay in the authorities' decision, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of disputes. The petitioner asserted compliance with court directions by submitting all required documents within the specified time. As no decision was made by the authorities within the set period, the revival of recovery proceedings was deemed unjust. No counter-affidavit was filed, leading the court to assume the facts in the petition were correct, further supporting the petitioner's claim of unfair treatment.Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, directing the stay of recovery proceedings subject to the petitioner serving a certified copy of the court's order on the respondents. The stay would remain in effect until a decision was reached on the dispute as per the court's previous judgment. The court clarified that the order would not apply if the petitioner's representation had already been decided in compliance with the court's earlier direction. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the order to their counsel within three days for a fee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
