AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(hereinafter referred to as Licensees) for loading and unloading goods subject to payment of licence fee which is to be revised every five years with the approval of Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP). 2.2. Allotment to the respondent for the licensees had been made in the year 2003. By notification dated 20.06.2005 licence fee was revised w.e.f. February, 2002. Thereafter, the next revision was notified on 23.07.2010 approving the revision of licence fee w.e.f. 20.02.2007 again for a period of five years. 2.3. Pursuant to the said revision, demand was raised for realising the arrears of licence fee for the period 20.02.2007 till 23.07.2010 i.e. the date of the notification. Beginning March, 2011, the Assistant Estate Manager/Estate Officer issued demand notice to all the Licensees. The Licensees challenged the notification dated 23.07.2010 before the High Court by way of writ petitions filed in the year 2011-2012 primarily on the ground that it was not permissible to revise the licence fee retrospectively. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 28.06.2013 dismissed the bunch of writ petitions holding that the licence fee could be revised retrospectively and upheld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ior to 23.07.2010 till such time the appeal is not decided. The said communication dated 04.02.2015 is reproduced hereunder: - "The Asst. Estate Manager (Gr.I) New Mangalore Port Trust, Mangalore, Sir, Subject: Writ Petition No.36972/2011, order dated 28.06.2013 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Ref: i) Payment of difference licence fee on account of revision of scale of rates w.e.f. 20.02.2007, on the basis of Tamp order No. G184, dated: 23.07.2010. ii) Your Letter bearing No.3/44/2015/EBL.1/TAMP, dated 15.01.2015. With reference to the above said subject, we would like to inform you that we had challenged the TAMP order dated: 23.07.2010, before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore by filing the writ petition No.34541 & 34784/211 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 28.06.2013 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. We have challenged the order dated:28.06.2013 passed in the writ petition by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore before the division bench by filing the writ appeal no.4400 & 4401/2013, the said writ appeal was posted on 10.11.2014....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice dated 15.02.2016 granting them three weeks further time to show cause and it further stated that the compound interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) would also be payable under the statutory provisions. This notice was also replied on 25.02.2016 by the Licensees resisting any demand during the pendency of the writ appeal citing the same reasons as given earlier. 2.9. The Estate Officer not satisfied with the reply and noting the fact that there was no stay granted in the pending writ appeals proceeded to pass an under section 7(1) of the PP Act granting a month's time to make the payment failing which it would be recovered as land revenue. 2.10. The Licensees preferred a miscellaneous appeal under section 9 of the PP Act before the District Judge at Mangalore. The District Judge clubbed all the appeals and decided the same vide judgment dated 15.03.2017, allowing all the appeals holding that the proceedings under section 7(1) was barred by time and accordingly, set aside the demand. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the District Judge, the NMPT filed writ petitions before the High Court which have since been dismissed by the impugned judgment giving rise to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show cause notice was issued on 21.08.2015, it was beyond the prescribed period of limitation. e) The respondents challenged the notification of revised tariff dated 23.07.2010 by way of several petitions before the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, in which interim order was also passed. The said bunch of petitions was dismissed on 28.062013. Aggrieved by the same, respondent preferred intra-court appeals which were admitted and are still pending before the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. Throughout in their correspondence to the various demands and the show cause notices, the only defence taken by the respondents was that the demand should not be pressed at this stage as it would prejudice their case pending in the appeal before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The tenor of the defence is clear. Then subject to the outcome of the appeals, the demand could be raised if the respondents failed. f) It is further submitted that in view of the specific stand taken in their replies, the respondents cannot now urge that the recovery proceedings were barred by limitation. g) In view of the admitted position that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c) The communication dated 04.02.2015 never admitted the liability/debt. In fact, it clearly denied the liability/demand on the ground that there could be no retrospective revision of tariff. It is, thus, wrong on the part of the appellant to argue that the communication dated 04.02.2015 acknowledged the liability/debt. d) The demands raised prior to 12.08.2015 were not under any statutory provision. These demands were being raised by the lessor to the lessee. The statutory authority under the PP Act for the first time, issued show cause notice on 12.08.2015, which admittedly was beyond a period of three years if the benefit of section 18 of the Limitation Act is not extended. Had there been a notice under Section 7(3) of the PP Act prior to 11.05.2015 to which a reply had been given by the respondents may be for deferment of the demand in view of the pending appeal before the Division Bench, it could be urged on behalf of the appellant that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. There being no such show cause notice prior to 11.05.2015, any proceedings for recovery would be barred by law. Both the notices under Section 7(3) dated 12.08.2015....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gement of this Court in the case of New Delhi Municipal Committee vs. Kalu Ram AIR 1976 SC 1637. In the absence of Kalu Ram (supra), the Limitation Act would not apply because the PP Act does not explicitly incorporate it. While Section 9 of the PP Act provides a limitation period for filing appeals, Section 7 thereof contains no such provision. However, Kalu Ram clarifies that the Limitation Act does apply to proceedings under the PP Act. On behalf of the appellants, it was briefly argued that Kalu Ram (supra) was incorrectly decided and required to be revisited by a larger Bench, but this was raised merely as a passing reference. 9. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that in view of the admitted facts that no notice was issued under the PP Act by the Estate Officer prior to 11.5.2015, the impugned proceedings under section 7 of the PP Act were rightly held to be barred by law. 10. In effect, both sides agree that the Limitation Act will apply to the proceedings under the PP Act. The respondents cannot argue that only section 3 of the Limitation Act along with the limitation provided under Article 52 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act will apply and not s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Clause (a) of the explanation to Section 18 declares that an acknowledgment would be sufficient for various reasons to be stated therein, which includes the time for payment has not yet come as one of the reasons. In the present case this reason squarely applies. The respondents were throughout alleging that the time had not been come as the appeals were pending before the Division Bench. This acknowledgement was given in response to the demand by the lessor (appellant) made well within the limitation of 3 years. The lessor as such would be entitled to the benefit of extension of limitation taking benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. 13. The respondents have vehemently argued that this point had never been raised before any of the forum below nor in the pleadings before this Court. However, the fact remains that the communication dated 04.02.2015 is not disputed by the respondents. There is no dispute on the contents either of the said communication. If that be so, under admitted position, and in view of Clause (a) of explanation to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the acknowledgment of the liability stands established. Thus, the limitation would extend to 03.02.2018....