Held - The contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition have not been considered in the impugned Assessment Order. However, the impugned Assessment Order is dated 30.12.2021. The petitioner has also not filed any statutory appeal as against the said order. He has chosen to file this writ petition only now i.e., after a lapse of more than thirteen months. Therefore, even if principles of natural justice have been violated by th.....

Held - As seen from the impugned orders, the contentions of the petitioner for not preferring the duty drawback claim within the prescribed time has not been considered. But by a cryptic and non-speaking order, the first respondent has rejected the petitioner’s request for relaxation in respect of the delay in filing the duty drawback claim.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents referring to the documents filed along w.....

Held - A perusal of the impugned order / communication at Annexure-A dated 11.03.2020 will clearly indicate that the same is a non-speaking, cryptic, laconic and unreasoned order which has been passed without any application of mind and without considering the detailed submissions of the petitioner nor the relevant provisions of the SVLDR Scheme or the Circulars and judgments relied upon by the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order /.....

Held - Considering the same and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner has filed this writ petition within a period of appeal. Further, the petitioner in his reply filed an annexure showing the difference of calculation. In the impugned order, there is no reason given for why the petitioner's calculation was not considered. The petitioner’s submission in the show cause notice reply is that 'by a technical hitch'. The pet.....

Held - Impugned order also deserves to be set aside on the ground of its being totally non-speaking. No reasons have been assigned in any of the orders for taking action against the petitioners and raising huge demand of toll and fine against them. Considering the issue regarding requirement of an order being speaking, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. V. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, formulated certain principles......