Custom
TRT-2025-
Bombay High Court
Date:-28-07-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- 0
Oder date – 28 July 2022
Facts –
- The petitioner, Insight Diagnostic Oncological & Research Institute Private Limited is a hospital & health care company.
- The petitioners had imported a Computerised Treadmill and a CT Scanner sometime in December 1990, for which they claimed exemption from payment of customs duty under Notification No.64/88-CUS dated 1/03/1988.
- Commissioner of Customs initiated an inquiry on 23/01/1998, and seized the goods petitioners had imported in April 1989 and December 1990.
- Commissioner of Customs disposed the show cause notice on 04/06/2003 by ordering confiscation of the medical equipments under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act and also imposed penalty. The Joint Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai via letter dated 28/07/2015, informed petitioners that they are liable to pay interest in terms of Section 28AB.
- The petitioner received a letter dated 29/08/2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST threatening to initiate recovery proceedings under Section 142 of the Act. At this stage, petitioners have approached this court by this writ petition.
Issue –
- Whether invoking provisions with retrospective effect against event which occurred years ago justifiable?
Order –
- The Court observed an indisputable fact that the provisions invoked against the petitioners were not in existence on the date of importation of the medical equipments.
- Relying on Diwan Chand Satya Pal Aggl. Imaging Research Centre Vs. Union of India – Delhi High Court where the facts were similar to the present case, held that the goods were imported in 1989-90 and, therefore, duty would have become payable in 1989-1990, whereas the provision was added in 1996.
- The court further observed that, as per the provisions a notice under section 28 (1) has to be issued before which did not occur in this case. The court pointed that, when notice under Section 28 itself has not been issued in this case, the question of determination of any duty payable under sub-Section (2) of Section 28 does not arise.
Download Case Law
