TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MI 496 - SUPREME COURT] , in its Postscript Note 1, observed that a certificate for dismissal is obtained from the highest court so that a quietus could be put to the matter in the Government Departments. Relegating a party to approach Courts or Tribunals, again and again, for interpretation of provisions of any Act or Rules or Notifications, which stand interpreted in earlier judgements is not only victimisation to the litigant but also wastage of judicial time. Moreover, the judgments which are not stayed or overruled by the higher Forums are binding on the respondents and ought to be followed wherever applicable in the facts of a given case. It is directed that the concerned Respondent Authority to decide the representations preferred by the Petitioner, which are Annexures A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8, appended to the present writ petition, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government Policies and with due deference to the decisions rendered by the CESTAT, New Delhi dated 02.11.2020 - petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 5617/2021 and C.M. APPL. Nos. 17504 & 17505 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2021 - HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from levy of BCD, CBD and SAD under various Notifications. On 01.07.2017, Goods and Services Tax Regime was implemented in India which inter alia provided for levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on inter-state supplies as well as imports. A Notification bearing No. 50/2017-Cus. was issued by Respondent No.1 on 30.06.2017 providing a list of Goods which were exempted from levy of Customs Duty and IGST. Another Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. was issued on the same date providing the list of Goods exempted from levy of BCD, IGST and Compensation Cess in case of re-import into India. 3. According to the Petitioner, after implementation of GST, the Petitioner cleared the Goods re-imported into India between July 2017 till date by claiming exemptions under the said Notifications. The concerned Authorities allowed exemptions from levy of BCD but refused to do so with respect to IGST on the ground that IGST is leviable on fair cost of repairs and cost of insurance and freight in terms of Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. Though the Petitioner did not agree with the said stand, however, out of commercial sense, it cleared the Goods on payment of IGST, albeit unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the orders passed by the higher or Appellate Authorities and the Respondents are thus duty bound to give effect to the orders of the CESTAT. There is a variation in the assessment by the Respondents because different officers are interpreting the Notifications differently, which is impermissible in law since the issue stands conclusively decided by the CESTAT in both its orders. 8. It is contended that time and again, Petitioner is being compelled to approach the Courts and CESTAT, despite two orders of the CESTAT in its favour. Since November, 2020, Petitioner has filed 541 Bills of Entry on which it has paid IGST, though under protest, to the tune of ₹ 116 Crores approximately, even though the same was not payable. For every Bill of Entry, Petitioner is having to resort to legal remedies under the Customs Act viz. before Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT, which is sheer victimization, besides blocking the working capital of the Petitioner resulting in financial loss, which has aggravated on account of Pandemic Covid-19. Respondents are acting in complete ignorance of the orders of CESTAT, particularly paragraphs 47 to 50 wherein it is clearly observed that in the abs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lems, they are exported for repairs and the repaired parts are thereafter re-imported into India. At the time of re-import, Bills of Entry are filed which are assessed to Customs Duty and Integrated Tax at the applicable rates. The dispute primarily is with regard to claiming exemption of the Integrated Tax under the Exemption Notification No.45/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017. The primordial grievance of the Petitioner is that once the dispute pertaining to levy of IGST of the repaired goods re-imported into India stands decided by two orders of the CESTAT, there is no reason why the benefit of the Exemption Notification be not granted to the Petitioner on further re-imports and the Petitioner should not be subjected to the harassment of approaching the Courts and other Forums for the said purpose. 14. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. CESTAT has passed two orders in favour of the Petitioner clearly holding that the Petitioner is entitled to the Exemption under the Notification, one with respect to 349 Bills of Entry and the other with respect to 415 Bills of Entry. Petitioner made representations dated 15.03.2021 and 01.04.2021 to Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment litigation should never forget this basic principle. 18. Justice VR Krishna Iyer s concurring opinion in the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India, (1974) 3 SCC 554 [Para 25] cited with approval a judgment of the Kerala High Court in P.P. Abubacker v. Union of India, AIR 1972 Ker 103 , wherein the Kerala High Court observed as under: The State, under the Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector it inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, Government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e predominant litigants in courts and Tribunals in the country. Its aim is to transform the Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. This policy is also based on the recognition that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the rights of citizens, to respect fundamental rights and those in charge of the conduct of the Government litigation should never forget this basic principle. Efficient litigant means (i) Focusing on the core issues involved in the litigation and addressing them squarely. (ii) Managing and conducting litigation in a cohesive, coordinated and time-bound manner. (iii) Ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are not needlessly persevered with. (iv) A litigant who is represented by competent and sensitive legal persons: competent in their skills and sensitive to the facts that the Government is not, an ordinary litigant and that a litigation does not have to be won at any cost. Responsible litigant means (i) That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating. (ii) That false pleas and technical points will not be taken and shall be discouraged. (iii) Ensu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing should be introduced whereby cases should be assigned a particular number of identity according to the subject and statute involved. In fact, further sub-grouping will also be attempted. To facilitate this process, standard forms must be devised which lawyers have to fill up at the time of filing of cases. Panels will be set up to implement categorisation, review such cases to identify cases which can be withdrawn. These include cases which are covered by decisions of courts and cases which are found without merit withdrawn. This must be done in a time-bound fashion. (Emphasis supplied) 22. From the conspectus of the judgments above, it is clear that the aim of the Policy is to transform the Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. Efficient litigant means ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are not needlessly persevered. Litigation should not be resorted to for the sake of litigating. Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The Hon ble Supreme Court has been repeatedly affirming that the propensity of Government Departments and Public Authorities to keep litigating is one of the reasons for docket explosion. Mindful of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he resolution of commercial disputes of Central Public Sector Enterprises (for short CPSEs )/Port Trusts inter se, as well as between CPSEs and other Government Departments/Organisations. The aim was and is to put in place a mechanism within the Government for promoting a speedy resolution of disputes of this kind, however it excluded disputes relating to Railways, Income Tax, Customs and Excise Departments. It has now been made applicable to all disputes other than those related to taxation matters. This was pursuant to an order passed in The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. National Interest Exchange of India by a bench of which one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.) was a part. 24. Useful it would be to refer to a Circular/Instruction dated 20.10.2010 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue regarding Implementation of National Litigation Policy which reads as under: Sub:- Reduction of Government litigations - providing monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT and High Courts - Regarding The National Litigation Policy formulated by the Government of India aims to reduce Government litigation so t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eover, the judgments which are not stayed or overruled by the higher Forums are binding on the respondents and ought to be followed wherever applicable in the facts of a given case. 27. This principle would apply with a greater vigour in the present case where the Respondents have not preferred an appeal against the earlier two decisions of the CESTAT. There is no justifiable reason for the Respondents to have compelled the Petitioner to file the present writ petition and in fact the Respondents should have on their own volition applied the judgements of the CESTAT to the subsequent Bills of Entry filed by the Petitioner. It would be a travesty of justice if despite two orders of CESTAT, each time a fresh Bill of Entry comes up for assessment by the Department, the concerned officer would attempt to give its own subjective interpretation to the Exemption Notification. Judgements are not mere ornaments and are meant to be followed in letter and spirit. 27. The argument of the counsel for Respondent No. 2 that for every Bill of Entry, Petitioner must prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), if aggrieved by an assessment, is an argument that runs counter to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
