Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2024 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 837 - MADRAS HIGH COURTTime limitation - suppression of facts or not - impugned order challenged on the premise that the very initiation by issuance of show cause notices 9 to 11 years after the subject import is beyond reasonable period - HELD THAT:- Section 124 of the Act which provides for confiscation, does not prescribe any period of limitation. It is trite law that whenever the statute does not prescribe limitation for taking any action, courts have consistently held that such action must be taken within a reasonable time - Thus any proceeding initiated or completed after a reasonable period would suffer from the vice of arbitrariness thereby falling foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Now what would constitute a reasonable period for taking any action or passing an order would depend on the scheme of the Act and the nature of rights and obligations flowing therefrom and the facts of the case. Keeping the above aspect in mind and on gleaning through the provisions of the Act, the largest period for taking action is provided under Section 28 of the Act for recovery of duty in case of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement. The impugned proceedings under Section 124 of the Act, 9 to 11 years after the date of the subject import cannot stand the scrutiny of reasonableness/arbitrariness inasmuch as any proceedings under Section 124 of the Act, 9 to 11 years after the import is unreasonable. Thus the impugned proceedings are set aside. The writ petition is disposed off.
|