Case Law Details
Style Garments Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court quashed an impugned order that denied Style Garments the benefits of duty drawback. The Court pointed out that the relevant Bank Realization Statement (BRS) had been uploaded in the portal but was not considered by the authorities. This article delves into the intricate details of this landmark judgment to understand its ramifications.
The Facts of the Case: Style Garments, the petitioner, had exported goods and was eligible for duty drawback benefits. However, the respondents denied these benefits, stating that the necessary documents were not submitted. Style Garments argued that the Bank Realization Statement had been uploaded as far back as 2013, and the respondents had not verified the same before passing the impugned order.
Legal Arguments Presented: B.Vijay Karthikeyan, the learned counsel for Style Garments, contended that Bank Realization Statements used to be granted manually until 2000. After that, it has been the bank’s duty to upload these statements into its portal. The respondents should have verified this information before making their decision.
Inadequate Procedure by Authorities: One of the notable aspects of this case was the absence of a Show Cause notice issued to the petitioner. Style Garments was not in a position to present its arguments before the authorities as a result, which the Court found to be a procedural lapse.
Closure of Company: The learned counsel also noted that the company had been closed in 2015, which made communications among the parties non-existent. This could have been another reason for the delay or failure in presenting the necessary documents.
The Judgment: The Madras High Court took into consideration the procedural inadequacies and the fact that the Bank Realization Statement was uploaded as far back as on 02.09.2013. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 22.09.2020, directing the respondents to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court also set a timeframe of six weeks for the completion of this exercise.
Conclusion: This judgment serves as a precedent for ensuring that authorities must take into consideration all available records, including those uploaded in digital portals, before denying benefits like duty drawbacks. It underscores the need for due diligence and procedural integrity on the part of authorities to uphold justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated 22.09.2020.
2. Heard B.Vijay Karthikeyan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Nandakumar, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material documents available on record.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner has exported the goods and is eligible for duty drawback. But the respondents had denied the benefits of duty drawback since the petitioner has not submitted the relevant document. But the contention of the petitioner is that the Bank would grant statement of bank realization manually until 2000, but subsequently it is the duty of the Bank is to upload the Bank Realization Statement in its portal. The respondents are having accessing to the same and the respondents ought to verify and ascertain whether the bank realization statement is available.
4. In the present case, the Bank has uploaded as early as on 02.09.2013 itself. Before passing order, the respondents have not verified the same. Moreover, the respondents have not issued any Show Cause notice. Therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to explain the same before the authorities. It is also submitted that the company was closed in the year 2015 itself. Therefore, there was no communication among the parties.
5. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief based on the statement of Bank realization, which the petitioner has enclosed in page No.46 of the typed set of papers.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 22.09.2020 is hereby quashed. The respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner and grant personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall submit the bank realization statement before the respondents and thereafter, the respondents shall pass order. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
7. With these directions and observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
