Mani Kant Rai v. Union Of India — 1996 DIGILAW 523 (PAT)

Judgment S. K. Singh, J. 1. - Present applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to return the Jeep bearing registration nos. BPG 915 and BHJ 6262 seized on 20.7.1995 in Patna seizure Case No.14 of 1995 as the show cause notice has been served upon the petitioners after expiry of the mandatory period of six months as envisaged under section 110 (2) read with section 124 of the customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). 2. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the show-cause notice was received by the petitioner on 1.2.1996 which was beyond the prescribed period as envisaged under the Act, as such, custom authorities do not have any option but to release the vehicles in question and the articles. 3. In support of the said contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Calcutta high Court reported in 1995 Cri. . L. J.1 (Oyatape Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and another V/s. Collector of Customs, Calcutta)in which word given as occurring in sections 110 (2) and 124 (a) of the customs Act has been interpreted and it has been held that either show-cause notice should have been received by the importer or at least the same should have reached him. When no show-cause was received by the petitioner after the period of six months from the date of seizure as prescribed in section 110 (2)of the Act, the custom authorities have no option but to release the goods in favour of the petitioner. 4. Mrs. Renuka Sharma, S. C. C. G. , on the other hand, has asserted that show cause has already been issued to the petitioners under registered post within the prescribed period and as the same had been despatched prior to the lapsing of the statutory period of six months, said show-cause notice should be deemed as validly served on the petitioners and the petitioners cannot be entitled to any benefit under section 110 (2) of the Act. In this regard, she has relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 6.2.1996 passed in C. W. J. C no.6775 of 1993 in the case of Ajit kumar Rai V/s. The Union of India and another. In this regard, she has relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 6.2.1996 passed in C. W. J. C no.6775 of 1993 in the case of Ajit kumar Rai V/s. The Union of India and another. In the said case this Court while considering the said fact as to whether notice was given to the petitioner within six months from the date of the seizure of the goods under section 110 (2) of the Act or not, held that as it was admitted position in the said case that the goods were seized on 4.1.1991 and notice was issued on 24.6.1991 under registered cover, Sec.153 of the Act provides that any summon or notice issued under the Act shall be served by tendering the same by registered post to the person for whom it is intended or to his agent. 5. Section 27 of the General clauses Act provides, inter alia, that where any Central Act or Regulation made after commencement of the Act, authorises or requires any document to be served by post then the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document. However, the said presumption can be rebutted if the concerned party can show that no notice was issued upon him. The Court further went to hold that reading the provisions of sections 110 (2) and 153 of the Act and section 27 of the General Clauses Act, it is clear that when a notice under registered cover after addressing and pre-paid is posted, then the notice will be deemed to have been effected unless the contrary is proved. In this regard while coming to the said conclusion in the said case, reliance has been made upon a judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of B. Bhoormal Tirupati V/s. The Additional collector of Customs, Custom House, madras reported in AIR 1974 Madras 224 in which it has been held that if notice is sent by registered post which is properly addressed with pre-paying of stamps, its service is deemed to be effected at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course post unless a contrary is proved. 6. I have also perused the judgment reported in AIR 1974 Madras 224. 6. I have also perused the judgment reported in AIR 1974 Madras 224. In the said judgment, it has been held that section 153 of the Act requires that the notice shall be served by sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended. It does not require that effective service should be effected on the person receiving it. After reading the same with section 27 of the General clauses Act, it has been held that when a document to be served is sent by a registered post to the proper address with pre-paid postage, its service is deemed to be effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in ordinary course unless a contrary is proved. In the said case a notice under section 124 of the Act was sent within sbc months by a properly addressed prepaid registered letter, and the same was returned with the endorsement (left ). It was held that the endorsement was not sufficient to prove the contrary and the notice was deemed to have been effectively served within six months as required by Sec.124 of the Act. 7. In the present case also admittedly notice has been sent within prescribed period, i. e. before the statutory period of six months has lapsed. The claim of the petitioner that the said notice though was sent on the correct address with pre-paid stamp by registered post still as it was despatched only two days prior to the lapsing of the said statutory period of six months it should be deemed that the notice has not reached the petitioner within the prescribed period cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of this Court as well as Madras High Court which have been relied by the Custom Department and discussed above. 8. Reliance has also been made upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1884 (7.7. Rao Asstt. Collector of Customs and others V/s. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh and another) in which while interpreting section 110 (2) of the Act it has been held that notice must be issued to the person for whom goods are seized before expiry of six months and if the service of notice before expiry of the said period becomes impossible, collector can grant extension and afford post decisional hearing. Reliance has also been made upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this court dated 9th April,1992 in Cr. W. J. C. No.81 of 1991 in the case of Mis ABC india Limited through its Area Manager at Jamshedpur V/s. Union of India and others. 9. In paragraph 19 of the said judgment it has beea held that since the show-cause notice was issued on 3.5.1991 by the Collector of Customs, patna which was within six months from the date of seizure on 25.12.1990 and as notices for show cause had already been issued within the stipulated period as envisaged under section 110 (2) of the act, there was no question of release of goods. In the said case reliance had been made upon a decision reported in a. I. R.1975 Madras 43 and A. I. R 1975 Punjab 130. 10. In any view of the matter, in the present case, notice has been issued to the petitioners within the prescribed period under section 110 (2) of the Act under registered cover with correct address and pre-paid stamp. 11. In view of law laid down by this court and other High Courts as well as supreme Court as the show-cause notice had been despatched to the petitioners with the requisite time, the goods in question and two Jeeps bearing registration Nos. BPG 915 and BHJ 6262 cannot be directed to be released in favour of the petitioners at this stage. 12. For the reasons, as stated above, there is no merit in the present application and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Application Dismissed.