Telangana High Court
M/S Rms Research Labs P Ltd., vs The Commissioner Of Customs And Excise on 27 December, 2023
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
***
WRIT PETITION No.21621 of 2004
Between:
M/s. RMS Research Labs (P) Ltd.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Customs and
Excise and Ors.
Respondent
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 27.12.2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
___________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
+ WRIT PETITION No.21621 of 2004
% 27.12.2023
# Between:
M/s. RMS Research Labs (P) Ltd.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Customs and
Excise and Ors.
.
Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. Mohan Rao
^Counsel for the respondent(s) :Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy
for respondent Nos.1 to 3
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2013) 10 SCC 746
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.21621 OF 2004
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed assailing the notice of demand to defaulter dated 16.11.2004 issued by respondent No.3.
2. The demand amount was Rs.22,02,216/- towards excise duty. In addition to that, there was a demand of Rs.13,30,000/- towards penalty and interest.
3. The petitioner had challenged the said notice of demand on the ground that it is an auction purchaser of subject property which stood mortgaged with respondent No.4. Originally, the subject property was mortgaged by its owner in favour of respondent No.4, and when the mortgagee defaulted in repayment of loan amount, respondent No.4 put the property to auction. The petitioner had purchased the subject property in the auction and occupied the same. Subsequent to petitioner's purchase and occupation over the subject property, the 4 impugned notice of demand has been issued to the petitioner.
4. The law in this regard is well settled, as would be evident from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rana Girders Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1, wherein it has been specifically held that subsequent transferee or the auction purchaser of the secured property would not be liable for the payment of outstanding amount which was due upon the defaulter.
5. The said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in bunch of Writ Petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.3428 of 2007 and batch, decided on 15.11.2022.
6. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present Writ Petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands allowed setting aside the notice of demand dated 16.11.2004 issued by respondent No.3 to the extent of raising the demand against the petitioner. However, it would be open to respondent No.3 to take such steps as 1 (2013) 10 SCC 746 5 may be permissible in law for recovery of outstanding excise duty from the original defaulter. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ____________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 27.12.2023 TJMR