9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imits which have been mandated in Regulation 22 of the CBLR 2013 have been followed in the breach. He submits that whereas the SCN was issued on 06.06.2017 and the inquiry officer report was submitted only on 29.11.2017 more than 90 days after issue of the notice. However the date of revocation of the license was on 09.05.2018 which again is more than 90 days beyond the Inquiry Officer report. 2.2 Ld. Advocate relies upon the Judgment dt. 19.08.2014 of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of A.M. Ahamed & Co. in W.P. No.30884 of 2013. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri M. Jagan Babu reiterates the correctness of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant has been found to be fully implicated in the offence committed by the impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andatory. But the said contention is wholly unsustainable, for the simple reason that a period of limitation prescribed by a Rule of procedure, cannot be diluted. The decision of the Supreme Court arose out of the refusal of a Civil Court to accept a Written Statement beyond a period of 90 days stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. Therefore, the decision taken in such a case cannot be relied upon. 24. Similarly, the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in Aval Exports vs. Union of India (2014 (301) E.L.T.14 (Del.), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, cannot also go to the rescue of the respondents. The case before the Delhi High Court concerned some applications filed for the issue of value based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng report is not directory and on the other hand, it is mandatory. No other contra decisions are placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents. Even the decision, which he sought to rely made in W.P.Nos.19312 and 19313 of 2016 dated 13.07.2016, is not relevant to the present facts and circumstances, since in that case this Court has considered the question as to whether the respondent therein had sufficient power to sustain the license invoking Regulation 19(1) of the Regulations. In this case, the petitioner has raised the issue on the time limit fixed under Regulation 20(5) and not 19(1). When the facts placed before this Court are very clear that the report itself was prepared and filed beyond 90 days as statutorily ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bitual offender and therefore, the proceedings are rightly initiated against them. This Court is not inclined to go into such allegation against the petitioner, as this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings only on the ground of limitation, as discussed supra. If the petitioner is an habitual offender, as alleged by the Revenue, it is not known as to what prevented the concerned authorities in proceeding against the petitioner by following the mandatory requirements contemplated under law. When there is a lapse on the part of the concerned authority in not making the report within the time stipulated which prevents further proceedings, the Revenue has to blame itself for such lapse, especially when the Courts have hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
