Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 655 (MAD)

Nippon Enterprises South Partnership Firm v. Union Of India

2000-07-11

Y.VENKATACHALAM

body2000
Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief sought for, to call for the records of the proceedings of the Public Notice No. 206/90, dated 20-11-1990 issued by the Addl. Collector of Customs and to forbear the respondents from including the sale price on high seas sale for arriving at the assessable value for the purpose of levy of duty. 2.In support thereon, the writ petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file this writ petition and requested this Court to allow this writ petition. 3.The respondents filed counter rebutting all the material allegations that levelled against them one after another and requested this Court to dismiss this writ petition for want of merits. 4.Heard both sides. 5.The point for consideration is as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not? 6.This Court put a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any written representation submitted to the respondents authority seeking the refund of the amount to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner replied that no written representation has been submitted before the respondents authority. If that is the case, that the petitioner is not entitled to get the amount refunded from the respondents authority. In the natural course he should give a written representation before the respondents authority for the relief sought for. As and when the respondents authority passed any negative order, after exhausting the appeal or revision remedy availed under law, as a last chance, he is entitled to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of writ for the relief sought for and no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner and the point is answered against the writ petitioner. 7.In the result, it is writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 11021 and 11022/91 are also dismissed.