9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th other articles. The petitioner also challenges the legality and validity of letter dated October 28, 1987 written by the Superintendent of Central Excise, AR II, Division III, Ahmedabad. By this letter the petitioner has been asked to reverse the `modvat' credit taken by it on inputs lying in stock as on 30-9-1987/1-10-1987. As stated in the letter the `Modvat' credit so taken by the petitioner amounted to Rs. 11,26,995.64 (Rupees eleven lacs twentysix thousand nine hundred ninetyfive and paise sixtyfour). By this letter the petitioner has also been asked to comply with the same by making debit entry and inform the Department immediately. 2.It is an undisputed position that by notification dated March 1, 1987 the `modvat' benefit was g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows : "What should be taxed is a matter not to be decided by the Courts, but by appropriate instrumentalities or functionaries." In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the contention that the impugned notification is discriminatory and, therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has no merits and the same has got be rejected. 5.Reference may be made to an order passed by Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (Coram : Yogeshwar Dayal, C. J., as he then was, G. C. Jain, J.) in C.W.P. No. 3032 of 1987, decided on October 30, 1987. This very notification was under challenge before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court has rejected the petition by passing the following order : "By the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise or representation is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise or representation would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it. if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties." In this case, there is no promise held out by the Government nor any such representation made by the Government. It is not even shown that relying on such promise or representation the petitioner changed his position and acted to his detriment. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court has held that the validity of subordinate legislation cannot be decided by the Court by applying the standard applicable to administrative action. However, it is liable to be questioned on the ground that it is unreasonable, i.e., manifestly arbitrary. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid principle. In the instant case by no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the withdrawal of modvat benefit granted by the earlier notification dated March 1, 1987 is in any way unreasonable so as to call for interference in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Neither in the petition nor at the time of argument such manifest unreasonableness has been pointed out. 9.In view of the aforesaid sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
