KANTILAL LALUBHAI AND CO Vs. G S VASWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In connection with this case a preliminary point has been raised namely that the petition should not be entertained on account of gross delay. There is a further preliminary point which I shall refer to hereafter.

(2.) The facts in this case are simple. On the 1st of October 1955 the steamer s.s. "DARA" brought in certain chests of tea. The petitioner was one of the parties who was a consignee and they were to export these goods in September, 1955. Therefore in September, 1955 they prepared the necessary shipping bills for assessment of export duty and they paid the same which was for that month 6 annas per lb. s. s. Dara which was expected to arrive on the 30th of September 1955 arrived, as I stated above, on the 1st October, 1955 and the duty leviable as from the 1st October for export of tea was eight annas per pound. Thereupon on the 25th of October the respondents issued a notice, which is annexed as Ex. A. to the petition, calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1,875 within 15 days such demand was made. According to the petitioners they contended that they were not liable to pay the deficiency and appealed to the Assistant Collector of Customs and the Assistant Collector of Customs rejected their appeal on the 30th January 1956. On the 13th February 1956 the Collector of Customs was approached, but on the 18th of April 1956 the Collector of Customs rejected the petitioners' request. The petitioners appealed to the Central Board of Revenue against this order which was rejected on the 21st May 1956 the revision and appeal being dated 8th of May 1956. It is at this stage that certain correspondence follows which is of some importance and they are collected as Ex. D and Ex. E. This is the correspondence with the Central Government. On the 18th of January the petitioners wrote to the Finance Ministry and on the 28th of January 1957 they got a reply that the orders could not be interfered with. In these circumstances the first point is taken that there is a gross delay of at least 12 months if not fourteen months and therefore the petition should not be allowed.

(3.) This appears to be a small amount of Rs. 1,875/- but evidently from the correspondence it appears that the petitioners firm is a member of the Tea Traders' Association who took up the matter on their behalf with the Central Government. It must be remembered, that the order of the Collector rejecting the application was followed by the final order of the Central Board of Revenue dated the 21st May 1956 and this petition was not filed until the 21st of March 1957, in any event; so that there was a delay at least of nine months. This gross delay would obviously put the petitioners out of Court. But this petition has been argued with a certain amount a tenacity, because it is admittedly a test petition on behalf of one of the members of the Tea Traders' Association.