Calcutta High Court
Limited And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 September, 2021
OD 4
ORDER SHEET
WPO 707 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S. A-ONE AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE
LIMITED AND ANR.
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN
Date : 22nd September, 2021.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Dipak Dey, Adv.
Mr.Arijit Chakrabarti, Adv.
Mr.Nilotpal Chowdhury,Adv.
Mr.Prabir Bera, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv.
Mr. Amal Kr. Datta, Adv.
...for the respondents
The Court: Heard both the parties.
In this matter petitioner has challenged the impugned notice
dated 6th August, 2021 being annexure P-10 to the writ petition
passed by the Additional Commissioner concerned/respondent no. 3
pursuant to my earlier order dated 28th June, 2021 where he was
directed to consider and dispose of the objection to the show cause
notice in question by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
On perusal of the aforesaid impugned order dated 6th August,
2021, I find that my order dated 28th June, 2021 has not been
complied with in its true letter and spirit rather respondent Additional
Commissioner taking the plea of pendency of the review petition
against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9th March,
2021 in a case of M/s. Canon India Private Limited where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has decided the issue against the department and in
favour of the case of the assessee.
Mr. Dey appearing for the respondent concerned could not
satisfy from any legal provision that respondent cannot consider a
final judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court if the respondent files a
review petition against that and it is pending.
In my considered opinion until the judgment of the Supreme
Court either is set aside or contrary view is taken by the Larger Bench,
the final judgment of the Supreme Court is binding upon all judicial
and quasi-judicial Authorities and the respondent concerned cannot
disobey the order of the Court by taking such plea that the review
application is pending.
Mr. Dey seeks time to take instruction with regard to the
aforesaid issue.
Mr. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that because of non-consideration of his case by
the respondent concerned everyday his client is suffering huge
financial loss. For that Mr. Dey submits that conditional provisional
order for release of the goods in question has already been made. Mr.
Khaitan submits that condition imposed for provisional release of the
goods in question is very harsh and highly unreasonable. His client is
willing to deposit the differential amount of duty so long his case is
not finally adjudicated by the authority concerned.
Liberty is given to the petitioner to make appropriate application
before the respondent no. 3 if petitioner is willing to deposit such
differential amount and the respondent no. 3 is directed to consider if
such proposal is made by the petitioner within a week from date.
List this matter on 29th September, 2021 to enable Mr. Dey to
take appropriate instruction as has been pointed out in this order.
(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)
TR/
