Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (2) TMI 675

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d 38 r/w S. 81 of the Evidence Act, 1872. No satisfactory evidence is produced by the petitioners to rebut the said presumption. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Das Bhojraj (2000 (2) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), we respectfully dissent from the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Param Industries Ltd. (2002 (9) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE), and hold that the said notification was published on 3-8-2001. We reject the contention of the petitioners that it was not published on 3-8-2001 and was not made available for sale till 6-8-2001. - Decided against assessee. - W.P. Nos. 18440, 20373 and 18466 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2013 - Goda Raghuram and M.S. Ramachandra Rao, JJ. Shri S.R. A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e above notification fixing tariff value for the said goods. 8. The petitioners contended that the said Notification No. 36/2001-Cus. (N.T.) was not published in the Gazette on 3-8-2001; that the said Gazette was not available to public access on 3-8-2001; that the said notification was published and made available to the public only on 6-8-2001 and therefore no further Customs Duty as demanded by the 2nd respondent is payable by them. It is submitted that none had knowledge about the above notification; that a statutory notification would take effect only from the date and time when it is actually published and made available to the public; that the notification would not come into effect on 3-8-2001 as it was published only on 6-8-2001 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1 as per the letter dated 10-9-2001 of the Assistant Controller (Business), Government of India, Department of Publication, New Delhi, referred to above; that a notification can be said to be made on the same day only if it is published and offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi and that failure to do so will not make the notification effective from the date of its issue for publication. However, we are informed that Civil Appeal Nos. 7801-7811 of 2004 were filed in the Supreme Court against the said decision of the Karnataka High Court and the appeals are pending before the Supreme Court. 12. Before this Court, the counsel for the respondents has produced an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and Salt Act, 1944 would be effective only if it is published and also made available to the public. 17. In Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India - (1994) 5 SCC 198 = 1994 (72) E.L.T. 805 (S.C.) dealing with a notification under S. 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 [before sub-section (4) was added in S. 25 by Act 21 of 1998, S. 99 w.e.f. 1-8-1998], the Supreme Court held that if a mode of publication is prescribed in a statute, the notification will come into effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette and that it is not necessary that the notification be made known or broadcast in some recognizable way to make it enforceable. The Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that until the notification was made availab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated 3-8-2001 containing publication of the Notification No. 36/2001-Cus. (N.T.), dated 3-8-2001 is produced before us. It is also asserted in the counter-affidavit that the said notification was published in the Gazette of India on 3-8-2001 itself. Being the official record evidencing public affairs, the Gazette is admissible and the Court is required to presume its contents as genuine u/s. 35 and 38 r/w S. 81 of the Evidence Act, 1872. No satisfactory evidence is produced by the petitioners to rebut the said presumption. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Das Bhojraj (supra), we respectfully dissent from the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Param Industries Ltd. (supra), and hold that the said notification was p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates