Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Sarfraz Nathoo Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Revenue Recovery Unit, The Superintendent of Customs

2017 (11) TMI 790 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Recovery of default of the company by ex-Managing Director of the company - case of the petitioner is that he was a Managing Director of a company and that he resigned from the directorship on 18.12.2003 much prior to the issuance of a show cause notice by the Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Inteligence, Chennai dated 29.3.2004 - petitioner submits that after the interim order was granted by this Court in this writ petition, the first respondent served a copy of the Order-in-Original alon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

584 of 2017 & WMP.Nos.25943 & 25944 of 2017 - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Dr.S.Krishnanandh For the Respondents : Mr.S.R.Sundar, SPC ORDER Heard both. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the demands dated 18.5.2017 and 02.6.2017 calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of customs duty, which being a sum of ₹ 2,21,05,600/- within 15 days. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was a Managing Director of a company and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at he has not been served with the Order-in-Original dated 14.2.2008, which prevented him from availing the legal remedies under the provisions of the Statute. In this regard, a representation was sent to the second respondent on 11.7.2017. Since nothing turned out on that representation, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed the above writ petition. 5. At the time when the writ petition was entertained, this Court granted an interim order on 13.9.2017, which is to the following eff .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.2004, i.e much prior to the show cause notice dated 29.3.2004. 3. It is submitted that though a copy of the show cause notice was served on the petitioner, he did not submit any reply because by then, he was no longer the Managing Director of the company. However, after about 12 years, the impugned communication dated 18.5.2017 has been sent to the petitioner calling upon him to pay a sum of ₹ 2,21,05,600/- being the amount of duty payable in terms of the Order-in-Original dated 14.2.2008 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version