9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to the case on hand, where dual payment has been made by the writ petitioner, and not excess payment, as employed in the Section, and after considering various provisions of the Lighthouse Act and decisions, ultimately writ court at paragraphs 19 to 21, ordered thus: "19. The dual payment made by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be described as excess payment, in the sense contemplated by Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927. What is effected by the petitioner is a dual payment or duplicate payment. The petitioner was forced to make such dual payment due to the failure of the web portal system to generate a receipt, when the petitioner made the first payment through the web portal. This Court is of the view that Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use Act, 1927 has no application in the case at hand, ought to have noted that the 2nd Respondent Commissioner of Customs would not have jurisdiction to pass any order or otherwise do anything in the matter including granting refund. The direction to the 2nd Respondent Commissioner of Customs would thus be against law and directing to exercise a jurisdiction which he may not have under the statute. C. The Learned Single Judge ought to have noted that if at all the Commissioner of Customs were to exercise jurisdiction to entertain or even consider the application for refund as directed under the impugned Judgment, the same could only be under Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927 and that in such event the Commissioner of Customs could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable then the Customs Authorities cannot grant refund as prayed for by the Writ Petitioner as such a payment would be outside the purview of the Lighthouse Act, 1927." 3. Though Mr.Sreelal Warriar, learned counsel for the appellant made submissions seeking for reversal of the impugned judgment on the grounds stated supra, going through the judgment and the statutory provisions, we are of the view that there are no merits in the writ appeal warranting interference, for the reasons that the writ court has considered the statutory provisions, and has rightly come to the conclusion that Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927 cannot be made applicable to the case on hand, as the expression used in the said section is, "excess payment" and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala it is requested to refund Rs. 6,33,144/- to M/s. Seahorse Ship Agencies Pvt. Ltd. from the offline collection of Lightdues under intimation to this office. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority. Encl: As above. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (S.Saravanan) Dy. Director" 5. On the above said letter, Mr.Sreelal Warriar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount collected through offline has already been deposited in the account of the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P. He further submitted that the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin is not the proper officer, but the said submission is refuted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 6. We ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
