J L KHATURIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on September 17, 1999, rejecting the application made by the petitioner under Section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for extending the period to bring the sale proceeds of the goods exported to Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) in foreign currency and deposit it in the bank in terms of the provisions of Section 80HHC to avail of the benefit thereunder in respect of such exports and consequential order, annexure 5, dated September 27, 1999, by which the amount of the export receipts received after six months has been added in the return income of the assessee for the assessment year 1998-99.

(3.) ALL these facts have been blissfully ignored by the Commissioner by focussing on the complaint lodged by an importer about the quality of the goods despatched by the petitioner. It is not even the finding of the Commissioner that the goods sent by the petitioner were really not of the specifications nor could he have reached this finding. If it is admitted that the dispute has arisen between the parties, it is not expected or presumed that the complaint made by the buyer is necessarily right or genuine. One cannot start with the presumption that the Indian exporter is always wrong, which impression is betrayed by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax on jumping to the conclusion that on raising the dispute the petitioner ought to have immediately settled the dispute as if he had no right to dispute the allegations made in the complaint or convince the buyer about the quality of goods despatched by him. It is natural in these circumstances that some time does take place before the parties could reach an amicable settlement by negotiation or get the dispute settled through the appropriate remedial forum. Which turn events ultimately take is anybody's guess, Nor can one predict that if the party did not take recourse to legal remedies immediately he is not acting with prompt despatch and commercial expediency. In such international trade and commerce, the recovery when such dispute arises is not easy at hand which could be solved immediately. Judicial notice of the fact can be taken that a visit from one country to another country particularly in the middle-East countries is not free passage and one has to undergo required procedure before entering the other country. About the procedure for obtaining the visa and entering the country in question, the petitioner had laid before the authority, the entire procedure required for such entry which is not found to be erroneous. One fails to understand if for settling the dispute , correspondence has failed, the petitioner has only to resort to personal visit for it. For fructifying that personal visit he was dependent on finding the sponsor and the sponsor having agreed only in the month of December, 1998, he had lost no time in pursuing the matter to visit the country of import and settle the dispute and bring the amount into India. Therefore, non-application of mind to the relevant material which was before the Commissioner is writ large.