The High Court of Delhi has allowed a review petition filed by M/S. Sumat Pershad and Sons, on the finding that the Customs Commissioner had not adequately addressed the petitioner’s request for crucial documents. The decision brings fresh scrutiny to the matter that has been in legal contention.
The case involves the appeal filed by M/S. Sumat Pershad and Sons against the Commissioner of Customs (Export) and others. The initial judgment was passed by the Delhi High Court. Following this, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and was later disposed of. The Supreme Court directed the petitioners to pursue a remedy of review before the High Court.
The issue revolves around a representation dated July 30, 2019, in which the petitioner requested various documents and information to enable them to respond to a Show Cause Notice (SCN). This SCN pertained to certain licenses and exemptions related to customs duty. The petitioner had specifically asked for copies of licenses/scrips containing all annexures and amendments, a crucial element in the dispute.
The petitioners were represented by Mr. Mukesh Anand, Mr. Sakshit Bhardwaj and Mr. Raghav Gupta while the respondents were represented by Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, Mr. Mohit Nege, Mr. Anchit Singla, Mr. Nishchaiy Sharma, Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla and Mr. Saksham Sethi.
The bench observed that the Customs Commissioner did not adequately address this request, leading to dissatisfaction from the petitioner’s side.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice C. Hari Shankar directed the Customs Commissioner to decide on this application dated July 30, 2019, expeditiously and within three weeks, allowing for cross-examination of witnesses and the provision of requested documents.
The court found that the Customs Commissioner had failed to make a conclusive decision regarding the petitioner’s request for original copies of licenses and scrips. This discrepancy has now led to the reopening of the case, raising questions about the adequacy of the initial judgment.
The bench allows the review petition and reinstates it for further hearings ensuring that all elements of the petitioner’s requests are properly addressed and that due process is followed during adjudication.
The bench concluded that no aspect of the petitioner’s request should be left unexamined, especially when it pertains to essential documents that could impact the outcome of the matter.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
