TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t before the learned Single Judge and accordingly, various appeals were filed and it was finally held that on bill of entry, the authorities cannot charge stamp duty under Art. 24. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of ₹ 22,41,866/- to the writ applicant No.1 (M/s. Ramratna Wires Ltd.) and ₹ 1,18,47,859/- to the writ applicant No. 2 (M/s. R.R. Kabel Ltd.). These two amounts were collected from the respective writ applicants as a stamp duty on the Bills of Entry filed for the goods imported by them, which otherwise could not have been recovered - application allowed. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14819 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the 1 st respondent herein to forthwith return to the Petitioner ₹ 22,41,866/- and ₹ 1,18,47,859/- on the terms and conditions that may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court; [D] An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of Para 14(C) above may kindly be granted [E] Any other further relief that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted 2. It appears from the materials on record that the writ applicants are engaged in the business of manufacture of goods like various varieties of cables and wires. They have their manufacturing units at Silvassa, Dadra Nagar Haveli (Union Territory). For the purpose of manufacturing of goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned AGP appearing for the State respondents. 4. The issue raised in this writ application as regards the legality and validity of collecting the stamp duty on the Bills of Entry is no longer res-integra in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (Letters Patent Appeal No. 6 of 2011 and allied appeals) decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 08.09.2011, to which, one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.) was a party. In the said litigation also, the writ petitioners had challenged the notices issued by the authorities and the guidelines issued for charging the stamp duty on the Bills of Entry. The State of Gujarat lost before the learned Single Judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one cannot ignore the document to be produced along with the 'bill of entry' [Form Nos. 22 and 23 of Bill of Entry [Forms] Regulations, 1976], where under at sr. no. 5, it has been mentioned: 'bill of lading' or 'delivery order' to be enclosed. 78.We therefore, hold that on 'bill of entry, the authorities cannot charge stamp duty under Art. 24. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the impugned communication vide letter dated 25.08.2020 (Annexure - I) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of ₹ 22,41,866/- to the writ applicant No.1 (M/s. Ramratna Wires Ltd.) and ₹ 1,18,47,859/- to the writ applicant No. 2 (M/s. R.R. Kabel Ltd.). These two amounts as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
