TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(in all W.Ps.) COMMON ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. These writ petitions, though pertain to different subjects, can be disposed of by answering a single question of law that has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner in all these writ petitions is one and the same. The writ petitioner had imported certain goods in the year 2016 subject to certain export obligations. Export obligations were to be fulfilled within 18 months. The petitioner had executed the relevant undertaking in this regard. While so, the first respondent issued notices dated 12.11.2018 informing the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave filed a detailed counter affidavit. They have also filed the typed set of papers. The learned Standing Counsel would contend that the orders impugned in these writ petitions cannot be faulted. According to him, they are certainly not vulnerable on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Materials have been placed before me to indicate that the notices were sent through speed post. The learned Standing Counsel draws my attention not only to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, but also to Section 153 (3) of the Customs Act and called upon me to apply the presumption set out therein. Section 153 (3) of the Customs Act reads as under:- 153(3): When such order, decision, summons, notice or any co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner's counsel states that the first respondent could have as well given notice to the said broker and that would have been in total compliance of the statutory requirements set out in Section 153(1) of the Customs Act. Admittedly, in this case, the Authority has not served the notice on the petitioner's customs house agent. Section 153(3) of the Customs Act is not a conclusive presumption. It is rebuttable in nature. The petitioner had clearly averred that they had not received the notices issued by the first respondent. They have also stated that they had shifted the registered office way back in May 2017. The notices in question came to be issued only in November 2019. 12. The petitioner's counsel also drew my atten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty some time in November 2019. He states that nothing prevented the petitioner from challenging the impugned orders immediately thereafter. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the impugned orders were passed by invoking Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the said order is appealable, the petitioner could have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 60 days. An Appellate Authority could have condoned the delay by another period of 60 more days. In this case, the petitioner has chosen to move this Court after the limitation period had totally expired, when the petitioner's right to file an appeal has been extinguished by operation of the limitation. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the Writ Court wil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch there exist none, or (A.2) Has exercised the power in excess of the jurisdiction and by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (A.3) Has acted in flagrant disregard to law or Rules or procedure or acted in violation of principles of natural justice where no procedure is specified. (B) Resultantly, there is failure of justice or it has resulted into gross injustice." 16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that this decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was followed in quite a few decisions of the Madras High Court. 17. This Writ Petition was of-course filed only in 2nd week of June 2020. But I have to take note of the fact that ....