AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Liberhan, J.—The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff sent a parcel of goods duty paid to Bahrin, a foreign country. It was not accepted by the addressee. The postal authorities asked for Rs. 24,102/- as postage charges as the parcel was received back. The plaintiff paid the same and requested the authorities to re-export the same to Jeedah but the same was not re-forwarded as it was detained by the C.B.I. at Bombay. The Customs department is alleged to have levied customs duty charges which is said to be the amount of draw back amount paid at the time of exporting the parcel. The Postmaster General, Ambala, vide his order dated 8-4-1982 ordered for the recovery of the amount alleged to have been imposed by the Customs Department and having been paid to the department as book entry. The correspondence was exchanged. The department claimed the amount u/s 12 of the Post Office Act, 1898. The Postal department sent the recovery to the revenue authorities for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue.
The plaintiff challenged the said recovery inter-alia contending that the order dated 8-4-1982 is an void order having been passed adverse to the plaintiff without granting any opportunity of being heard and without prior notice to him. It was further averred that the postal authorities had no jurisdiction to recover the amount under the certificate. The recovery being without jurisdiction, the respondent sought an injunction restraining the defendant from effecting the recovery as arrears of land revenue.
The allegations were controverted. The defendants contended that there was no valid service of notice u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code. The suit was not maintainable u/s 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act read with Section 157/158 of the Act. The plaintiff could only maintain the suit for recovery of the amount after the same was paid in terms of Section 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The suit was stated to be barred by time. It was contended that the plaintiff had filed a civil case in Bombay wherein a direction was issued for the release of the parcel and its return to the sender after levying of customs duty charges: (These charges were admitted to be the amount of draw back money i.e. the amount paid to the plaintiff at the time of exporting the parcel). The order dated 8-4-1982 of the Postmaster General was said to be within jurisdiction, legal and valid. It was averred that plaintiff never objected to the payment of customs duty inspite of various notices issued and the postal department was entitled to recover the amount u/s 12 of the Post Office Act.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?
Whether the suit is hit by S. 80 CPC?
Whether the suit is maintainable in present form?
Whether the suit is hit by S. 78 of the Panjab Land Revenue Act?
Whether the suit is hit by S. 157 of the Panjab Land Revenue Act?
Whether the suit is within limitation?
Relief.
The courts below found that the customs duty being the amount of draw back money assessed to be Rs. 44,184-35 P. was due for realisation from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not paid the same. The Postmaster General had made the payment u/s 12 of the Indian Post Office Act to the Customs authorities. The postal authorities were entitled to recover the same from the plaintiff. The order of the Postmaster General was squarely covered by section 12 of the Act. The said findings were confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The trial Court further found that in view of Section 78 read with Section 157 of the Panjab Land Revenue Act, the present suit was not maintainable in the present form. The suit was found to be within limitation. In view of the findings of the courts below, the suit was dismissed.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends:
(i) That the order dated 8-4-1982 is a void order having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing. It had been passed at the back of the plaintiff. It cannot be enforced. The recovery of the amount as arrear of land revenue cannot be effected as the same is due under a void order.
(ii) that the Postal authorities have jurisdiction only with respect to the amounts due under the Act that is the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 or a customs duty paid by the Post Office with respect to articles received by them by post from any place beyond the limits of India. The Post Office was neither liable to pay any other customs charges to the Customs department nor it could recover the same from the plaintiff.
(iii) since the order under which the recovery is being effected is without jurisdiction, suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable and section 78 read with Section 157 of the Panjab Land Revenue Act is no bar.
The learned counsel, in order to support the contentions raised, pointed out that admittedly the amount claimed by the Customs Authorities by way of levying customs duty is a draw back amount that is the amount already paid to the party at the time of export. It is not disputed that the amount sought to be recovered is not the amount which the plaintiffs have refused to pay on account of any postage or any sum due from him under the Act i.e. The Indian Post Office Act, 1898 in respect of the postal articles. Section 12 reads as under:-
Recovery of postage and other sums due in respect of postal articles. - If any person refuses to pay any postage or other sum due from him under this Act in respect of any postal article, the sum so due may, on application made by an officer of the Post office authorised in this behalf by the written order of the Postmaster General, be recovered for the use of the Post Office from the person so refusing, as if it were a fine imposed under this Act, by any Magistrate having jurisdiction where that person may for the time being be resident; and the Postmaster General may further direct that any other postal article, not being on Government service, addressed to that person shall be withheld from him until the sum so due is paid or recovered as aforesaid.
A plain reading of the section makes it obvious that the Postal Authorities are entitled to recover the amount u/s 12 only with respect to postage charges or any other penalty or sum leviable or due under the Act. The Postal Authorities have no jurisdiction to recover any other amount due to the State or any other authority with respect to the postal article. No other provision of the Act has been referred to or pointed out by the learned counsel for the Union of India under which the charges or the sum claimed is due under the Indian Post Office Act or is related to any postage. The counsel for the Union of India has attempted feebly to contend that the amount is recoverable u/s 13 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which reads as under;-
Customs duty paid by the Post Office to be recoverable as postage. - When a postal article, on which any duty of customs is payable, has been received by post from any place beyond the limits of India, and the duty has been paid by the postal authorities at any customs port or elsewhere, the amount of the duty shall be recoverable as if it were postage due under this Act.
A plain reading of the Section itself shows that any duty of custom which is payable by the Postal Authorities with respect to an article received by post from any place beyond the limits of India and the duty has been paid by the Postal Authorities, can be recovered as if it was postage dues. Again, in view of the admitted fact that the article was exported out of India and not received in India by post from beyond its limits it was not a case of an article on which customs duty was leviable under this Section. Even otherwise, the admitted case of the Union of India is that it was the draw back amount which has already been paid to the party at the time of export of the article which is being recovered in terms by the customs authorities. Section 13 does not confer any jurisdiction on postal authorities to recover the said amount. No other provision of the Act has been pointed out under which the Postal authorities were liable to pay to the customs authorities such a sum nor any provision under which the same can be recovered by them from the plaintiff.
The counsel for the respondent has not been able to show that the order dated 8-4-1982 passed by the Postal Authorities was after due compliance of the principles of natural justice that is after hearing the parties adversely affected. The order being a void order cannot be enforced and the plaintiff is within its rights to seek an injunction against the authorities restraining them from enforcing a void order.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit and grant an injunction. Section 78 read with Section 157 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act does not bar civil courts'' jurisdiction if the action of the authorities is without jurisdiction. In order to support the contention raised, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on Roshan Lal v. State of Panjab AIR 1983 Punj. 428, wherein the Hon''ble Judge, after taking into consideration, a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1976 P&H. 271, observed as under:-
that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred by virtue of provisions of Section 158 of the Act on peculiar facts of that case, I would like to elaborate the matter in a little more detail to support the view. A reading of the preamble of the Act would show that the Act was formulated for making and maintenance of records of rights in land, the assessment and collection of land revenue and other matters relating to land and liabilities incidental thereto. Chapter VI provides for the mode of recovery of the land-revenue. If the land-revenue was recovered erroneously from any person, then S. 78 provided that in case he had paid the land revenue under protest, he was entitled to come to the civil Court and claim refund of the same on proof of the illegal or excess recovery. In that very context, S. 158 of the Act has to be read and particularly sub-sec. (2), cl. (xiv) with which we are concerned in this case.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the order fixing the liability of the plaintiff being void and without jurisdiction, the defendants had no jurisdiction to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. However, respondent shall be at liberty to recover the amount due from the plaintiff in accordance with law and the rules and avail other remedies available to them. In view of my above observation, the appeal is accepted, judgments and decree of the courts below are set aside, the defendants are restrained from recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue on the basis of the order dated 8-4-1982 passed by the Postal authorities. The appellant shall be entitled to the costs.