Delhi High Court
M/S Aditya Industries Through Its ... vs Additional Director General Of ... on 9 April, 2018
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Pronouncement: 09.04.2018
M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
MRS KUSUM GHILDIYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Prem Kumar, Adv.
versus
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
& ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anil Soni, CGSC with
Mr.Abhinav Tyagi, Adv. for R-1.
Mr.Satyakam, ASC with Mr.
Shaswat Parihar, Adv. for R-2 and
Mr.Dheeraj Kumar, Jr.Asstt. C/o
SDM, Sarita Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J (ORAL)
CM. APPL. 13602/2018
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 3443/2018
2. The challenge in this petition is laid to the letter dated 23.11.2015,
issued by respondent No.1 and final notice dated 25.01.2016 issued under
Section 136 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case of
mistaken identity as the recovery notice has been directed against M/s.
Aditya Industries having its registered office at 605, Rohit House, Tolstoy
Marg, New Delhi 110001, not against the petitioner which goes under the
same name. I am told that the Petitioner is a proprietorship concern
owned by, one, Mrs. Kusum Ghildiyal, having its registered office
located at L-127 Pocket C, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 110076.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner
draws my attention to the adjudication order dated 11.02.2011 which is
appended at page 39 of the paper book. In particular, my attention is
drawn to paragraph 3 where reference is made to the fact that the advance
license dated 04.08.1993 in the sum of Rs.25,01,334/- was issued in
favour of M/s Aditya Industries, located at 605, Rohit House, Tolstoy
Marg, New Delhi 110001.
5. A perusal of the adjudication order would show that the advance
licence was issued under the Duty Exemption Scheme. Apparently, the
advance license was issued subject to the licencee exporting goods worth
Rs.75,00,160/- in fulfilment of its obligation.
5.1 Since, the obligation, as required under the license was not fulfilled
at all, a show cause notice was issued, which led to passing of the
adjudication order, to which, I have made a reference above.
5.2 At the foot of the adjudication order, the following addresses of the
notice are given:
"M/s. Aditya Industries, 605, Rohit House, 3-Tolstoy Marg, New
Delhi 110001
M/s. Aditya Industries, L-127 Pocket C, DDA Flat, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110076
Smt. Kusum Ghildiyal, L-127, Pocket C, Vihar, New Delhi-
110076".
6. Apparently, based on the contents of the adjudicating order the
impugned communication dated 23.11.2015 was issued by the Assistant
Director General of Foreign Trade to the Chief Secretary, Government of
NCTD. Resultantly, SDM, (Sarita Vihar) issued the impugned final
notice dated 25.01.2016 for recovery of dues.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner upon
receipt of the final notice made a representation to the Asstt. Director
General of Foreign Trade on 10.02.2016.
7.1 I am told that the said representation has not been disposed of.
8. As indicated above, the petitioner's stand is that it is a case of
mistaken identity. Recovery which is sought to be made from the
petitioner concern, according to the learned counsel, ought to be made
from its namesake.
9. Issue notice. Mr. Soni accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
Mr. Satyakam, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
10. In view of the order that I propose to pass, counsels for the
respondents submit that the respondents do wish to file a counter
affidavit.
11. It appears, upon perusal of the record that the petitioner has
something to say in the matter as regards the recovery which is sought to
be against it. Petitioner as noticed above says its a case of mistaken
identity. Since a representation has been made to respondent No.1 in that
behalf, to which, I have made reference above, the said respondent is
directed to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner and/ or its
representative on 25.04.2018 at 11.00 am. Thereafter, respondent No.1
will pass a speaking order; a copy of which will be furnished to the
petitioner. In case, the petitioner is still aggrieved, it will have an
opportunity to assail the same in the manner known to law.
12. In case, the date indicated above does not suit respondent No.1, he
will be at liberty to fix a fresh date which will be approximate, though, to
the date fixed above.
13. It is made clear that during the pendency of the matter before
respondent No.1, no coercive measures will be taken against the
petitioner pursuant to the final impugned communication dated
23.11.2015 and final notice dated 25.1.2016. Furthermore, in case the
order passed be respondent no. 1 is against the interest of the petitioner, it
will not be given effect to for a period of two weeks of the service of the
order.
14. Petition is disposed of in the aforementioned.
15. Dasti to all the parties.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
APRIL 09, 2018
neelam
