TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hing of the case directed to be filed by Respondent No.1 in Customs Application No. 28 of 2001 that was filed by Respondent No.2 and for return of Bank Guarantee of Rs.26,86,000/- given by petitioner in favour of Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court. 2. According to petitioner, as submitted by Mr. Adke, pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner had furnished a Bank Guarantee of Rs.26,86,000/- in favour of Prothonotary and Senior Master, Bombay High Court. Against furnishing of the said Bank Guarantee, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 refunded an amount of Rs.50,72,000/- that petitioner had deposited during the course of investigation. By an order dated 10th January 2006, in Customs Application No. 28 of 2001 (t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the benefit of the court. We have considered the synopsis and the provisions of law referred thereto as well as the judgments referred therein. We must express our appreciation for the distinguished assistance by Mr. Sriram Sridharan, learned Amicus Curiae. The endeavour put forth by Mr. Sridharan has been of immense value in rendering this judgment. 6. Section 130(A)(4) of the Customs Act reads as under : "If, on an application made under sub-section (1), the High Court directs the Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of law raised in the application, the Appellate Tribunal shall, within one hundred and twenty days of the receipt of such direction, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court". 7. We have consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dealing with the reference on the merits, it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary point. Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act provides that the Commissioner or the assessee may, by an application made within a certain time, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of its order and further provides that "the Appellate Tribunal shall, within ninety days of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court". In the present case the reference was not made within ninety days from the receipt of the application. As this was happening in too many cases, it appeared to this Court that the statutory direction contained in Section 66(1) of the Act was be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect. As stated there, the principle is that where the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of that duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not promote the main object of the Legislature, such provisions should be construed as being directory only and not imperative. It is true that the act which the Privy Council was considering was an act of a different kind, but it appears to us that the principle laid down is none the less applicable here, because the object of the Legislature is to provide that questions of law arising out of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ays from the date of the application, is only directory and we hold further that for that reason as also the other reasons we have given, the present reference is valid, although made after the expiry of ninety days." (Emphasis Supplied) This was later confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on merits in 1957 32 ITR 466 (SC). 9. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Duncan Brothers & Company Ltd. 1955 28 ITR 427 (Cal) where again Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 was being considered, Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held as under : "I may add, though it is hardly necessary, that a question of limitation is always a question between the parties and not a question between the parties or one of them and the Court. What the par....