Guduru Chandra Sekhar vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the refusal to admit the petitioner's second appeal was not sustainable. The earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 03.11.2020, which rejected the appeal, was not on merits but solely on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129-E of the Customs Act. Therefore, filing the appeal again on 03.12.2020, after complying with the pre-deposit, should not be considered a repeated filing in a manner that disentitles the petitioner from seeking adjudication. The Court found that the earlier order was merely an order refusing to entertain the appeal, not an order on the merits of the case. Consequently, the contention that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal to the CESTAT was rejected. The Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned letter dated 31.12.2020, and restored the petitioner's appeal filed on 03.12.2020 to the file of the third respondent for consideration on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated 31.12.2020 from the Principal Commissioner of GST & Customs (Appeals) refusing to admit their appeal. Previously, the Additional Director, DRI, issued a show cause notice dated 20.08.2018. The Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 29.05.2020, ordering confiscation of gold bars, Indian currency, and foreign currency, and imposing penalties totaling Rs. 25,62,013. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal on 17.08.2020, undertaking to pay the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the disputed penalty amount. This appeal was rejected in limini by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 03.11.2020, for non-compliance with Section 129-E of the Customs Act. The petitioner then filed another appeal on 03.12.2020, enclosing proof of pre-deposit. This second appeal was refused admission by a letter dated 31.12.2020, on the grounds that time extension was for filing appeals, not for filing repeatedly before the same forum.
Key Issues
1. Whether the refusal to admit the petitioner's second appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 31.12.2020, on the ground of repeated filing, is arbitrary, illegal, and opposed to the spirit of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 128 and 129. 2. Whether the petitioner, having complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129-E of the Customs Act in their second appeal filed on 03.12.2020, should have been granted admission, especially since the earlier rejection was not on merits but on procedural non-compliance. Petitioner's arguments: The reason for refusal was arbitrary and illegal. The earlier rejection was not on merits but solely for non-compliance with Section 129-E. The petitioner had time till 31.12.2020 to prefer the appeal as per a Government notification dated 30.09.2020, and was also entitled to the benefit of exclusion of limitation period as per the Supreme Court's order in Suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020. Revenue's arguments: The Commissioner of Appeals was justified in refusing to admit the appeal for the second time due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129-E. The only recourse for the petitioner was to file a statutory appeal before the CESTAT against the order dated 03.11.2020.
Sections Cited
Section 124, Section 111, Section 121, Section 113, Section 11, Section 118, Section 119, Section 112, Section 114, Section 128, Section 129, Section 129-E
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
WRIT PETITION No.3041 of 2021 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)
A letter bearing A.No.111/2020 (V) CUS, dated 31.12.2020, of the Principal Commissioner of GST & Customs (Appeals)-third respondent herein, refusing to admit the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
Heard Sri P.Rosi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Special Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.
The facts and circumstances leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as infra:
The Additional Director, office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit-fifth respondent herein issued a show cause notice bearing F.No.DRI/ HZU/VJRU/48/ENQ-05(INT-04)/2018/1354, dated 20.08.2018, under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). In response to the said show cause notice, petitioner herein submitted his reply/objections on 10.12.2018. Thereafter, the Adjudicating
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.