Case Details: S. Hidayathullah @ Mannady Bharakath (Died) Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II (2025) 31 Centax 439 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr. Anita Sumanth & C. Kumarappan, JJ.
- S/Shri B. Kumar, Senior Counsel for M.A. Abdul Huq, for the Appellant.
- Ms Anu Ganesan, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, legal heirs of a deceased assessee, challenged the recovery of penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962, arising from an adjudication order confirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner contended that penalty attaches only to the person on the basis of his intention to commit an illegal act and that the Customs Act, 1962, contains no provision to proceed against legal heirs after the death of the assessee. It was further contended that unlike the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Customs Act, 1962, does not provide for bringing legal representatives on record for recovery proceedings, and that Section 142A could not apply as the assessments were framed when it was not enacted. The petitioner submitted that the property had not been attached through a certificate of attachment and, therefore, recovery against legal heirs was not permissible. The matter was accordingly placed before the Madras High Court.
High Court Held
The Madras High Court held that penalty attaches to the person premised on his intention to have committed an illegal act and that the legislature had consciously kept legal heirs outside the purview of liability under the Customs Act, 1962. It observed that Sections 142 and 142A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995, are silent on recovery after the demise of the assessee. The Court held that recovery under Section 142 is expected to be from the individual on whom the adjudication order was passed, unless there is a specific provision enabling recovery against legal heirs. It further held that Section 142A could not aid the Department where assessments were framed when there was no enabling provision to enforce demands as a first charge on the assessee’s property. The Court concluded that the demands and appeals stood lapsed and that the Department could only pursue recovery through a civil suit, which was not possible after a long lapse of time.
List of Cases Reviewed
- S Hidayathullah Alias Mannady Barakath v. Commissioner — Final Order Nos. 40002-40003/2014, dated 6-1-2014 by CESTAT, Chennai — Affirmed [Paras 1, 4]
List of Cases Cited
- A. Tajudeen v. Union of India — 2015 (317) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 7]
- Ajikumar v. District Collector — 2020 SCC Online Ker. 2052 — Distinguished [Paras 12, 19]
- Bondada Gajapathy Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh — AIR 1964 SC 1645 — Distinguished [Paras 10, 18]
- Chatturam v. Commissioner of Income Tax — AIR 1947 SC 32 — Referred [Para 9]
- Chief Commissioner v. Kannan Karuppusamy – 2016 (341) E.L.T. A44 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Commissioner v. Ashirwad Foundries Pvt. Ltd. — 2022 (382) E.L.T. 607 (Cal.) — Relied on [Para 30]
- Imperatrix v. Dongaji Andaji — ILR (1878) 2 Bom. 564 — Distinguished [Paras 10, 16]
- M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira — AIR 1988 SC 506 — Distinguished [Paras 11, 19]
- Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair — AIR 1986 SC 411 — Referred [Para 11]
- Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal — AIR 1959 SC 144 — Distinguished [Paras 10, 17]
- Rustomji Dorebji v. W.H. Nurse and Parthasarathy Naidu — 1920 SCC Mad. 266 — Referred [Para 11]
- S. Jayalakshmi v. Deputy Commissioner — 2017 (356) E.L.T. 23 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 5]
- Shabina Abraham v. Collector — 2015 (322) E.L.T. 372 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 23, 43]
- T.P. Rajmohan v. Commissioner — 2006 (195) E.L.T. 39 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 7]
- Tarak Nath Gayen v. Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal — 1987 (31) E.L.T. 631 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 5]
