News Update

Govt orders mandatory declaration of stock position of wheatCPI gets Rs 11 Cr tax notice for using old PAN numberGST - Penalty demand of Rs.3731 crores - A person who would fall within the purview of sub-section (1-A) of s.122 should necessarily be a taxable person who retains the benefits of transactions: HCGovt issues advisory against calls impersonating DoTFATP hand-wrings over slow regulation of crypto by member-countriesGST - Threatening and pressurising petitioner who is merely an employee - Highly unconscionable and disproportionate on the part of the officer: HCECI's C-Vigil app a big hit with votersGST - Same relief was claimed in earlier petition which was withdrawn unconditionally - Fresh petition seeking same relief is barred by the estoppel principle: HCIncome tax hands over Rs 1700 Cr tax demand to Congress PartyGST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCStage-2 of Vikram-1 orbital rocket successfully test-firedGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCHouthis claim UK has not capability to intercept their hypersonic missilesGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCIsraeli forces kill 200 Palestinians at Gaza medical complex & arrest over 1000GST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Training Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesCus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTAT
 
Cus - S.129E did not defeat or render vested right of appeal illusory - condition of pre-deposit is a reasonable condition: HC

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 28, 2017: THE Petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Section 129E of the Customs Act,1962 as amended by the Finance Act, 2014 [w.e.f 06.08.2014] prescribing a mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeal. They also challenge the o-in-o on the ground that the order is illegal, being passed without considering the submissions of the petitioners.

In assailing the legality of Section 129E of the Act, the contention interalia urged on behalf of the Petitioners is that the provision is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The next contention is that Section 129E as amended has taken away the powers earlier conferred on the appellate authority to waive the pre-deposit, upon forming an opinion that a pre-deposit would cause undue hardship. [Mardia Chemicals Ltd. = 2004-TIOL-32-SC-SECURITISATION relied upon]

Revenue in its reply affidavit contended that the challenge as raised is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Nimbus Communications Ltd. = 2016-TIOL-1708-HC-MUM-ST and followed in other cases.

It is submitted by the counsel for the Revenue that the substituted section has been introduced as a measure to facilitate trade, business and industry by speedy resolution of disputes before various appellate forums; that even pre-deposit of disputed amount of duty or penalty for the longer period by the appellants is no more required after imposition of substituted Section 129E of the Act; that assessees are no more required to deposit the entire disputed amount to prevent the recovery officer from resorting to any coercive measure for recovery of dues; that waiver of pre-deposit under the pre-amended Section of 129E of the Act was not as a matter of right of the Appellants and the Appellate authority after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case could grant a waiver in appropriate cases; that under the present disposition after the amendment, the assessee gets immunity from any coercive action for recovery of dues, in case, the appeal is pending before any appellate authority under Section 129 of the Act and pre-deposit as mandated has been made.

After extracting the referred provisions, the High Court observed thus -

++ The contention of the petitioner that the provision is rendered discriminatory as it creates two different classes when it mandates pre-deposit of duty demanded or penalty imposed or both, and more particularly when penalty cannot be considered to be a revenue as it is not a tax requiring it to be safeguarded, also cannot be accepted. It may be pointed out that even the pre-amended provision stipulated for a deposit in case of appeals from orders levying penalty. [ Vijay Prakash D.Mehta and JawaharD.Mehta = 2002-TIOL-427-SC-CUS - right to appeal is a statutory right and not an absolute right, which can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant.]

++ By virtue of Section 129E, the right to appeal as conferred under the said provision is a conditional right, the legislature in its wisdom has imposed a condition of deposit of a percentage of duty demanded or penalty levied or both. The fiscal legislation as in question can very well stipulate as a requirement of law of a mandatory pre-deposit as a condition precedent for an appeal to be entertained by the appellate authority. In view of the above settled position in law, Section 129E of the Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground as assailed by the petitioner.

Relying on the decisions in M/s.Dream Castle = 2016-TIOL-1009-HC-MAD-ST and Ganesh Yadav = 2015-TIOL-1490-HC-ALL-ST - that Section 35F of the CEA did not defeat or render the vested right of appeal illusory and that the condition of pre-deposit is a reasonable condition and such condition did not defeat the vested right of appeal, the High Court held that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the apex court decision of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. was completely misplaced.

Concluding that the Writ Petitions lack merit, the same were dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-1205-HC-MUM-CUS)


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Not printer's devil but printer a devil

You have written "after extracting the referred provisions, the High Court...". What was extracted was the version of Finance Bill and not that of the Finance Act, which rendered the Bench unable to see how two classes are created, ie. saddled with duty or duty & penalty on one side and only penalty on the other side.

The same mistake happened in the Nimbus case also.

The problem crept because of the incorrect version published by Professional Book Publishers who publish under the Trade Name "Professional's". The said publisher gave the version of Finance Bill in the bare act though the same was altered and the Finance Act was passed with modifications in the proposed substitution of Section 129E.

We are in the process of filing a Review Petition in the matter.

Posted by sureshbala sureshbala
 

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023