9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court. 2. Levy of Countervailing Duty. 3. Limitation for Claiming Refund. 4. Maintainability of Writ Petition for Refund. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court: The primary issue was whether the Rajasthan High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition since the cause of action arose in Bombay. The respondents argued that the duty was paid, and the refund application was submitted in Bombay, thus no part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan. The petitioner contended that the orders were communicated to them at Pipalia Kalan, Rajasthan, where their registered office is located. The court held that part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan as the orders were received there, thus conferring jurisdiction on the Rajasthan High Court. 2. Levy of Countervailing Duty: The petitioner challenged the levy of Rs. 396 per M.T. as countervailing duty under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1936, arguing that it was not leviable. The court examined various notifications and found that the goods in question (Electrolytic Grade Aluminium Wire Rods) were not subject to excise duty at the relevant time. The court concluded that the levy of countervailing duty was not justified and was ultra vires the statute. 3. Limitation for Claiming Refund: The respondents argued that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it was not filed within six months from the date of payment. The court held that the levy was ultra vires and, therefore, Section 27(1) did not apply. The court further noted that the petitioner became aware of the mistake upon the issuance of the public notice on October 15, 1967, and filed the writ petition within three years of discovering the mistake, thus within the limitation period under Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. Maintainability of Writ Petition for Refund: The respondents contended that a writ petition solely for the refund of money was not maintainable, citing Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The court distinguished this case by noting that the primary relief sought was the quashing of the orders, with the refund being a consequential relief. The court held that it had the power to grant such consequential relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the amount was being withheld without authority of law. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to refund the amounts collected as countervailing duty. The court held that the Rajasthan High Court had jurisdiction, the levy of countervailing duty was ultra vires, the refund claim was within the limitation period, and the writ petition was maintainable for the consequential relief of refund.
|
