2020 (2) TMI 1214 - SC - Customs

Application to the High Court, any question of law arising from order of the Tribunal - HELD THAT - There is nothing in the text of Section 130A which implies that the High Court is mandatorily required to call for a statement from the Tribunal in every case, where a reference is made. This is so because of the language of Sub-Section 4 which opens with an if . A reading of Section 130A (1) (4) would make it clear that if the Commissioner of Customs or other party within the prescribed period of limitation applies in the prescribed form to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal, the High Court may do so. What is clear on a reading of sub-section (4) is that the High Court has a discretion on the facts of each case either to do so or not to do so. This becomes absolutely plain from the first word in sub-section (4), namely, if - There is nothing in the language of Section 130A which first mandatorily obliges the High Court to call for a statement from the Tribunal before deciding any such application. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Section 130A of the Customs Act regarding the High Court's discretion to call for a statement from the Tribunal in cases of reference.

In this judgment delivered by Justice R. F. Nariman, the issue at hand involves the interpretation of Section 130A(1) & (4) of the Customs Act. The judgment begins with the counsel for the Revenue referring to a previous order and emphasizes the necessity to understand the provisions of Section 130A. The Court notes that the language of the statute does not mandate the High Court to call for a statement from the Tribunal in every case of reference, as indicated by the use of the term 'if' in sub-section (4). The Court clarifies that the High Court has the discretion to decide whether to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law to the High Court based on the facts of each case. The judgment overturns a previous decision in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, which incorrectly implied a mandatory requirement for the High Court to call for a statement from the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court rules that the High Court is not obligated to seek a statement before deciding on such applications. The judgment concludes by answering the question posed and disposing of the appeals accordingly.

This judgment provides a significant clarification on the High Court's discretionary power under Section 130A of the Customs Act in cases of reference from the Appellate Tribunal. It highlights the importance of understanding the statutory language and upholding the principle of judicial discretion in such matters. The decision serves to correct a previous misinterpretation and establishes a clear precedent for future cases involving similar issues.