2026-VIL-1090-MAD-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1090-MAD-CU

CUSTOMS High Court Cases

Customs - Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner imported goods described as Rice Bran, classified the same under a tariff item and claimed levy of IGST at Nil rate under the relevant notification entry, which claim was accepted by the proper officer while processing the Bill of Entry - On audit, Department took the view that the goods were liable to IGST at 5% under a different notification entry and alleged that the Petitioner had wilfully misclassified the goods and wrongly availed the benefit of the notification, invoking the extended period under Section 28(4) and raising a demand for differential duty - Whether the ingredients necessary for invoking Section 28(4) of the Customs Act are made out in the facts of the case - HELD - Section 28(4) applies only where non-levy, short-levy or short-payment of duty is by reason of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, as distinct from Section 28(1) which applies for reasons other than such conduct - The mere fact that the Department subsequently takes a different view regarding classification or applicability of an exemption notification does not by itself justify invocation of the extended period, absent material to establish that the short-payment was occasioned by collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression - The Petitioner disclosed the description and classification of the goods in the Bill of Entry, which was processed and accepted by the proper officer, and no material was placed to show concealment of material particulars or deliberate false declaration - The mere use of the expression wilful misstatement in the show cause notice or impugned order cannot confer jurisdiction under Section 28(4) absent the Department establishing the factual basis therefor - The dispute being essentially with regard to applicability of the exemption notification and the rate of IGST, the essential conditions for invoking the extended period were not satisfied - Impugned order-in-original set aside, without precluding the respondent from taking such action as may be permissible under Section 28 of the Act subject to the applicable period of limitation – The writ petition is allowed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?