In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court ordered the customs department to provide the certified copy of order in original rejecting the Department’s plea of previous service.
The Petitioner, M.A.Wajid & Co engaged in the export of footwear, who had availed of duty drawback benefits contingent upon realising export proceeds within the stipulated time frame.
The petitioner asserted that they had fulfilled this requirement, obtaining bank realisation certificates as evidence. However, their contention was challenged following a communication dated 29.11.2023, referencing an order in original dated 26.12.2022.
In response, the petitioner, lacking a copy of the aforementioned order, formally requested one through a letter dated 03.02.2024. Seeking legal recourse, the petitioner filed a writ petition, urging the issuance of a certified copy of the order in original.
During proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel presented a comprehensive array of documents (pages 19 to 59 of the typed set) to substantiate the realisation of export proceeds and the availability of requisite documentation. It was further argued that the petitioner had not been served with a copy of the order in Original dated 26.12.2022.
Mr. Rajinith Pathyil, senior standing counsel, representing the respondents, contended that if the order had been served on the petitioner previously in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962, there was no obligation to provide another copy.
A single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy emphasised the importance of transparency and access to legal documents. It noted that even if a certified copy had been previously served, the respondents could easily verify and provide evidence of such service. Hence, there was no impediment to furnishing another copy to the petitioner.
Consequently, the court disposed of W.P.No.11012 of 2024 by directing the respondents to furnish a certified copy of the order in original dated 26.12.2022 to the petitioner within thirty days from the receipt of the court’s order, ensuring transparency and fairness in the adjudication process. No costs were imposed in this matter.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
