BharatTaxGST

Bonanza Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs & Anr.

W.P.(C)/7510/2024HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01031353202419 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA11 pages
For Petitioner: Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar and Mr. Richik Harikant, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Standing Counsel for Customs with Adv Anand Pandey, Adv
AI SummaryRemanded

Held

The Court held that the service of notices was questionable, as the petitioner claimed non-receipt despite the department's assertion of service via post and notice board. The Court emphasized the importance of serving notices via email to avoid ex-parte proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, an exporter, challenged an Order-in-Original that sought to recover duty drawbacks due to alleged belated realization of export proceeds. The petitioner claimed they never received the show cause notice or hearing notices, leading to an ex-parte order.

Key Issues

Whether the show cause notice and hearing notices were properly served on the petitioner? Whether the realization of export proceeds was belated, justifying recovery of duty drawback?

Sections Cited

Section 153, Section 75, Rule 16, Rule 18

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7510/2024 BONANZA ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar and Mr. Richik Harikant, Advs. versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Standing Counsel for Customs with Adv Anand Pandey, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R % 24.12.2024

1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2.

The present petition has been listed, on mentioning, for directions.

3.

It is pointed out that the reference, in paragraph 27 of the judgment dated 19th December, 2024, to the word “common portal” has been inadvertently referred to as “the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) common portal”.

4.

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Department clarifies that the common portal is that of the “Customs Department”

5.

The directions given in paragraph 27 of the said judgment would, therefore, be read as to the “common portal of the Customs Department” instead of DGFT common portal.

6.

Let today’s order be uploaded as a corrigendum to the earlier order dated 1

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.