Case Law Details
Mr. J. Sheik Parith Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
The only aspect that remains is to determine whether it would have been ‘possible’ for the respondents to complete such determination within the time frame fixed or whether they had been prevented from doing so by reason of an impediment or bar, justifying the elapse of time from 22.12.2011 till date excluding the period 31.10.2012 to 25.07.2013, that is, eight (8) years, nine (9) months and counting.
Admittedly, there is no bar, legal or otherwise that stood in the way of completion of adjudication. The interim injunction granted inP.No.29833 of 2012 was in force between 31.10.2012 and 25.07.2013 only (268 days). In any event, the Miscellaneous Petitions had come to be dismissed and the injunction vacated on 25.07.2013 for the reason that no notice had been served upon the respondents by the petitioner, either privately or by service through Court. Thus the existence of the injunction between 31.10.2012 and 25.07.2013 was itself not within the knowledge of the respondents and they could well have proceed with the matter.
As regards what would construe a reasonable period for completion of proceedings where no time period or limitation had been set out in the relevant statute, Courts have held that such proceedings should be completed within a reasonable period, also taking note of the scheme of limitation prescribed in other provisions in that statute, where relevant. In Bhattinda District Cooperative Milk P. Union Ltd. (217 ELT 325), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered what would be a reasonable period for reopening of an assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. Section 21 of that Act had not fixed any period of limitation for completion of the re-assessment. However, the Court applying the well settled proposition that where no period of limitation have been prescribed, the Statutory authority must exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable period took a cue from the periods of limitation prescribed for revisional jurisdiction, being three years, concluding that a reasonable limitation for completion of the re-assessment would be a period of five years. In that case, since the notice itself had been issued after a period of five and half years, it was held to be invalid.
In Transworld Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Government of India (381 ELT 178) a learned single Judge of this Court, and in Surendralal Girdharilal Mehta V. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.No.322 of 2015 dated 17.05.2018) the Calcutta High Court once again reiterated the settled position that an authority exercising power under the Statute can engage in an action that has the effect of disturbing the rights of a citizen only within the time stipulated and where such limitation was not stipulated, within a reasonable time.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
