TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was exclusively using the car from January 1971 onwards. The petitioner claims that by an agreement dated 25th December 1971, the petitioner retired from the partnership concern and his retirement was to be effective from December 31,1971. The petitioner claims that under this agreement the car was allotted to the share of the petitioner. The petitioner further claims that in fact he used the car from January 1972 onwards and paid the repair bills sometime in February 1972. The car was transferred in favour of the petitioner on May 2,1972. The retirement of the petitioner from the partnership concern was published in the Government Gazette, Kenya, on 25th August 1972. The petitioner, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity and legality of the imposition of customs duty. 2. Mr. Rana, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition contended that the Customs Authorities were in error in depriving the petitioner of the advantage of the notification. Mr. Rana submitted that the petitioner was a partner in a firm till December 31,1971 and the car was transferred in the name of the petitioner as an owner by an agreement of retirement. The petitioner has not produced the agreement of retirement but has relied upon the notification published in the Government Gazette and contended that he retired from the partnership from 31st December 1971. In the absence of the agreement it is not possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the conditions imposed by the notification requires that the repatriate should be the owner for not less than one year before the date of arrival in India and it does not mean that the repatriate should be an owner for a continuous period of one year prior to his arrival. Mr. Rana submits that the petitioner who was a partner of the firm owned car from July 1970 for a period of more than one year and that period should be attached to the period from which he becomes the owner of the car to hold that the petitioner was entitled to the advantage of notification. It is not possible to give such construction to the terms of the notification. The wording of the notification is very clear and repatriate who desires to claim exemption mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
