TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icense was issued under By-law No. 55A. Sections 56 and 58 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1963) deal with the mode of realisation of charges short levied or erroneously refunded or quoted. 2. Between April 1988 and July 1988 the respondent no. 1 cleared goods belonging to various importers and exporters from the port of Haldia upon payment of Port charges so levied upon them. The Port Trust, however, at the time of levying such port charges erroneously gave credit for 14 days free period whereas the consignees were entitled to 7 days free period. The Port Trust raised supplementary bills upon the respondent no. 1 at a subsequent stage. The respondent no. 1 expressed their inability to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated September 15, 1999 admitted the appeal and granted stay of operation of judgement and order and directed hearing of the appeal on the papers of the stay application. 6. The appeal was heard by us on the above mentioned dates. 7. Perusal of the documents disclosed in the pleadings reveals as follows : (i) Prior to February, 1988 , 15 days free period was allowed to all the consignees to clear the goods until notification dated March 10, 1988 was issued reducing the said period from 15 to 7 days. (ii) Cargo was released between April 1988 and July, 1988 availing 15 days free period despite notification dated March 10, 1988. According to Port Trust this was done by mistake. (iii) On May 5, 1988 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay issue a notice to the person who is liable to pay such charge or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice . Provided that no such notice shall be issued after the expiry of two years. (a) When the charge is short levied, from the date of the payment of the charge ; (b) Where charge has been erroneously refunded, from the date of refund. (c) The board say, after considering the representation if any, made by the person to whom notice is issued under the sub-section (1) determine the amount due from such person shall pay the amount so determined. Section : 58 Rates in respect of goods to be landed shall be payable imme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Pyarelal & Ors.) (v) 1987 Volumn 28 Excise Law Time page 334 (Board of Trustees for The Port of Calcutta v. Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. & Anr.) (vi) 1999 Volumn III Supreme Court Cases page 422 (Babu Verghese &Ors. v. Bar Counsel of Kerala & Ors.). 12. Let us first find out the law laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court on the subject controversy . (i) All India Reporter 1959 Supreme Court Page 135 ( The Sale Tax Officer Banaras & Ors. v. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Sharaf. In this case the Apex Court interpreted the term "mistake" in the context of Section 72 of the Contract Act. The Apex Court observed that if any payment is made in excess by mistake ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in this statute. (iv) All India Reporter 75 Supreme Court 1935 (The Trustees of the Port of Madras v. M/s Aminchand Pyarelal & Ors.) The Apex Court herein held that the By-law framed by the Port Trust by virtue of the power granted under the major Port Trust Act has its statutory clothing and can not be declared ultra vires on the ground of unreasonableness . Those who desire to avail of the services of the Board are liable to pay for those services at prescribed rates and to perform the conditions framed in that behalf by the Board. (v) 1987 Volumn 28 Excise Law Time page 334 (Board of Trustees for The Port of Calcutta v. Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. & Anr.) This case dealt with the lien of the Port Trust under secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to raise supplementary bills within a period of two years. Such statutory provision was applied strictly in accordance with the provision of Section 56 read with Rule 55 A of regulation. Hence, the respondent no. 1 was obliged to make payment of the differential amount through supplementary bills. It might be a fact that by passage of time it would be difficult for the respondent no. 1 to collect such differential amount from the consignees or the consignor being their principal. Such difficulty cannot absolve the respondent from their liability to pay. 15. With all humility may we say that the learned Judge was perhaps not correct to apply the principle of equity in the facts and circumstances of this case as the claim of the appe....