IGI Logo

In a relief to Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the demand notice of the Revenue Department as there were no steps taken by the Authorities for adjudicating the notice, Taxscan reported.

The petitioner, Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone, is engaged in the business of developing, operating and maintaining the port and port-based related infrastructure facilities, including the multi-product Special Economic Zone.

In 2004, it imported certain second hand equipment, i.e., capital goods/professional equipment, more particularly, as mentioned in the Less Charge Demand Notice.

This led to issuance of the demand notice dated August 2, 2007, demanding duty to the tune of Rs 25,03,414 on the basis of a bill of entries filed for imported second hand equipment.

It has been alleged that the petitioner company in spite of availing the benefit of Notification No. 27/2002, debited the same duty under the DFCE certificate in terms of the notification dated April 1, 2003, Taxscan reported.

In the demand notice, it is the case of the Revenue Department that the capital goods imported by the petitioner company on re-export basis and assessed to duty at concessional rate under Notification No 27/2002, the ownership of the goods was not vested in the petitioner and in view of the condition of the notification dated 1.4.2003 as amended, the goods so imported against the licence issued to the petitioner company shall not be transferred or sold.

It is alleged that in view of the same, the petitioner has contravened the provisions of DFSECC Scheme benefit of exemption.

The division bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and Sangeeta K. Vishen said the petition deserves to be allowed by quashing the demand notice considering the various aspects.

Firstly, after the issuance of demand notice dated August 2, 2007 and filing of the reply dated October 8, 2007, no steps worth the name have been taken by the Revenue Department in furtherance of the aforesaid notice.

Secondly, no fault has been attributed to the petitioners for the delay in adjudication of the notice, the report said.

Thirdly, almost after 11 years, the petitioners would be justified in forming a bonafide belief that the notice dated 2.8.2007 by now must have been dropped.

Fourthly, to expect the petitioners to preserve the relevant document and evidence, in absence of any intimation of keeping the notice in abeyance, is an expectation too far fetched.

Lastly, for the petitioners to gather all the records and in the absence of sufficient record/assistance of the concerned employees/officers working at the relevant point of time, it would not be possible for the petitioners to defend the case properly, the report said.