| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(EX) 1082 CUSTOMS ACT, 1962
Section 58B
Where assessee was denied renewal of warehousing license and writ petition filed by assessee against such denial was dismissed, and thereafter assessee filed writ appeal against observation of Single Judge holding that the third respondent, was already in possession of the warehouse and was granted full liberty to take action as he may deem fit and necessary to obtain gainful use thereof, appeal of assessee was dismissed as assessee could not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of Court based upon an interim order passed by the Trial Court.
|
Licensing of private warehouse - Renewal of Warehousing license denied to assessee - Invoking of writ jurisdiction on the basis of a status quo order granted by the trial Court in a Civil Suit in which Customs Department was not at all a party -
Warehousing license, for which renewal was sought by assessee-company, was refused to be renewed/extended since the lease by the third respondent in favour of assessee/licensee was expired. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Bonds), held that the said License for bonded warehouse could not be renewed in favour of assessee and consequently, directed assessee to intimate the importer/Customs House Agent for clearance of goods lying in the said warehouse and that no further bonding of cargo was permitted thereafter. Assessee filed writ petition, which was dismissed. Thereafter, assessee filed writ appeal contesting finding of Single Judge that the third respondent, was already in possession of the warehouse and was granted full liberty to take action as he may deem fit and necessary to obtain gainful use thereof. Case of assessee was that aforesaid observation may affect his case in civil suit pending before trial Court, wherein Customs Department was not a party. Held: Section 58 enjoins upon the licensee a duty to clear off the goods after cancellation of the license within seven days. There was no case of extension of period under sub-section (4) of section 58B in instant case. Even assuming for argument sake that observation of Single Judge may affect the right of assessee in the pending suit before the Civil Court, it was assessee who was to be blamed for this, because it was the assessee who invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of Court based upon an interim order passed by the trial Court. There were no reason for the assessee to have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of a status quo order granted by the trial Court in a Civil Suit in which Customs Department was not at all a party. Nothing prevented him to even implead Customs Department also as Defendant in that very suit, so that all related issues could be adjudicated by one Court. This is what, the abuse of process of law is and if an observation of a learned Single Judge in this process was given against assessee, he could not be permitted to raise a plea against that in the intra-court appeal.
REFERRED : ACME Warehousing (P) Ltd. v. Pr. Commr. of Cus. [W.P. No.8086 of 2020 and WMP. Nos.9597 & 9599 of 2020, dt. 25-8-2020].
FAVOUR : Against the assessee.
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|