Neelachal Org. P. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court held that furnishing details relating to the guarantee bond would be a futile exercise, as the bond had lost its validity and force after the expiry of its one-year term from the date of execution. The Court observed that the bond, executed on September 22, 1990, would have expired in 1991. Consequently, all legal consequences flowing from this declaration would be binding upon the Central Excise and CGST authorities, as well as the bank authorities concerned. The Court did not explicitly state the reasoning beyond the bond's expiry rendering further action futile, but the ratio appears to be that expired instruments do not warrant continued retention or complex procedural follow-ups. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with this observation.
Facts
The petitioner, Neelachal Organization Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in returning a guarantee bond. The bond was executed on September 22, 1990, in favour of the Collector of Central Excise and was valid for a period of one year. The petitioner sought the return of this bond. The respondent CGST authority stated that the bond is not traceable and requested the petitioner to furnish details by a letter dated March 1, 2019. The petitioner's grievance pertains to the non-return of the guarantee bond.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to return a guarantee bond that has expired and lost its validity? The petitioner argued that the guarantee bond, executed on September 22, 1990, had a validity of only one year, meaning it expired in 1991. Therefore, it has lost its legal force and should be returned. The petitioner contended that the inaction of the authorities in returning the bond is unjustified. The respondent CGST authority submitted that the bond is not traceable and requested further details from the petitioner. The respondent did not present any argument against the return of an expired bond, focusing instead on the procedural difficulty of locating it.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 PB Sl. No.
WPA 19224 of 2023 Neelachal Organization Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. Mr. Srinjoy Das, Mr. Saroj Banerjee, Mr. Jui Jana, Ms. Amrita Ghosh. … For the Petitioner. Mr. Debasish Choudhury, Mr. Prithu Dudharia. …….for the UOI. Mr. K. K. Maiti, Mr. Tapan Bhanja. …….for the CGST authority. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondent authorities concerned in returning the guarantee bond submitted by the petitioner in favour of the Collector of Central Excise, a copy of which has been annexed as appears from page 13 being annexure P-1 to the writ petition and on perusal of the aforesaid bond it appears that the said guarantee bond was executed on 22nd September, 1990 and was valid for a period of only one year.
2 Mr. Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the respondent CGST authority concerned submits that the said bond is not traceable and the respondents have asked the petitioner to furnish some details by a letter dated 1st March, 2019. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
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 Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.