Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1000 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTRecovery of sums due to Government u/s 142 of Customs Act, 1962 - attachment and taking possession of property - Duty drawback payments received by forged declarations and documents - Assessee voluntarily surrendered various movable and immovable properties including the flat in question towards the recovery of the dues - the predecessor-in-interest of the First Petitioner informed the Assistant Commissioner of Customs of the flat having been taken on leave and licence - Predecessor-in-interest of the First Petitioner called upon to vacate the premises – Held that:- Neither the provisions of Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 nor the provisions of the Rules framed thereunder provide for the vesting of the property without encumbrance - There is no provision under which any encumbrance in respect of the property is to get divested - On the contrary, it is evident from Rule 23(1) that what is vested in the purchaser is the right, title and interest of the defaulter in the property. Authenticity of the leave and licence agreement - Licensor failed to refund the security deposit – Whether the Licensee was entitled to continue use of the Premises till the refund was made without being liable to pay any compensation – Held that:- It would not be appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to enquire into a wholly disputed question in regard to the authenticity of the purported leave and licence agreement - The discrepancies to which a reference has been made earlier only indicate to the Court that in a matter which involves a dispute in regard to the authenticity of the document, it would not be appropriate for this Court under Article 226 to determine whether the document which is produced on the record is infact genuine. Petitioners are in use and occupation of the residential flat - As the material on the record would indicate, the use and occupation of the Petitioners as been to the knowledge of the Customs Authorities right at least from July, 1998 - It has not been necessary for the Court to consider the legitimacy of the attachment notice that was levied by the Customs Authorities - it is a matter of some significance that the Seventh Respondent as the owner of the residential flat has consciously refrained from challenging the attachment notice that was levied by the Customs Authorities – the challenge cannot be entertained at the behest of the Petitioners, particularly when the licence agreement upon which the Petitioners rely is a wholly disputed document - Order set aside but the Department is given liberty to seek possession of the premises by taking recourse to due process of law – Decided in favour of Petitioner.
|