W.P.(C)/8691/2017 of ALOK PACKAGING PVT. LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Parties
- W.P.(C)/8691/2017 of ALOK PACKAGING PVT. LTD (PETITIONER)
- UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1)
Statutes cited (1)
- constitution of india, article-226 (1950)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
$~3 & 19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 10103/2017, CM APPL. 41314/2017N.N INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Shubhankar Jha & Mr. Kunal Prakash, Advs. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Saroj Bidawat, Adv for UOI Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Adv for Customs Mr. Satish Aggarwal, Adv for respondent no.3
W.P.(C) 8691/2017, CM APPL 35662/2017
ALOK PACKAGING PVT. LTD .... Petitioner Through Mr. Shubhankar Jha & Mr. Kunal Prakash, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep, Advs. for UOI Mr. Satish Aggarwal, Adv for respondent no.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
28.02.2018
In these petitions, the petitioners claim that the rate of interest as mandated by law and payable by the assessee on delayed payment of duty is much higher than the rate of interest payable to assessee on
delayed payment of refund. The petitioners thus contend that the notified rates which average upto 6 per cent per annum are vastly below the rates charged by the customs authorities for short or non-levy of duty, besides the penal interest. It is highlighted that in the latter category, the State extracts, as much as 15 per cent per annum.
During the pendency of these proceedings, and after notice was issued, the writ petitioners approached the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission, which by its final orders dated 26[th] October, 2017 and 6[th]February, 2018, accepted the petitioners’ offer to settle their liabilities/dues at the rates offered. The said rates were deposited as pre-condition for the adjudication of settlement applications.
Having regard to these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the question urged with respect to discrimination in regard to the disparity of rates of interest, cannot be appropriately examined in the present proceedings under Article 226.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 sm
A. K. CHAWLA, J