TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard to contend that sub-section (4)(b) of section 25 of the Act is only directory and not mandatory. The facts emphasized in the present case, reveal that the N/N. 1/2013 Customs dated 21.01.2013 was received by the government press on 21.01.2013 at 9.45 p.m., printed on 01.02.2013 and sent to Kitab Mahal on 04.02.2013. Clearly, therefore, the N/N. 1/2013Customs, though issued on 21.01.2013, was neither published in the official gazette nor was offered for sale on the said date, and therefore, would not come into force and be operative from 21.01.2013. Under the circumstances, the said notification cannot be made applicable to the goods imported by the petitioner which were cleared on 21.01.2013. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20859 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2017 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI MR. A.S. SUPEHIA JJ. Appearance: MR ANAND NAINAWATI, ADVOCATE for Petitioner(s) No.1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DHAVAL D VYAS, ADVOCATE for Respondent(s) No. 2 CAV JUDGMENT (PER : MR. A.S. SUPEHIA) (1) The present writ petition assails the communication issued under File No.VIII/48226/ A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esponse wherein at Point No.(ii) of the response, it is informed that the notification was received in the press on 21.01.2013 at 9:45 p.m. Also, at Point No.(vi) it is informed that the notification was printed in the Gazette of India on 01.02.2013. Further, from Point No.(vii), it is evident that the notification was dispatched to Kitab Mahal on 04.02.2013 vide Press Gate No.C35647 dated 04.02.2013 and Kitab Mahal acknowledges receipt at 01:35 p.m. on 04.02.2013. (7) Thereafter, vide impugned communication dated 16.10.2015, the Respondent no.2 directed the petitioners to pay differential Custom duty of ₹ 1,23,37,546/along with interest. (8) Learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainawati appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Company has contended that as per the information received by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, qua publication of Notification No.1/2013Customs dated 21.01.2013 vide letter dated 28.02.2013, written by the CPIO, Government of India Press, New Delhi, the same was received in the press on 21.01.2013 at 9:45 p.m., and it was printed in the Gazette of India on 01.02.2013. He has stated that it is evident from the said letter that the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of respondent No.2 is justified and does not require any interference. He has authoritatively stated that the fact that the Notification No.1/2013Customs dated 21.01.2013 was printed in the Gazette of India on 01.02.2013 is irrelevant for the purpose of giving its effect for charging Basic Customs duty. He has asserted that sub-section (4)(a) of section 25 of the Act speaks of the date of effect of notification by providing that the same comes into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette. Sub-section (4)(b) of section 25 of the Act is a directive provision mandating the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi, to publish and make available for sale a copy of the notification from the date of its issue. This arrangement is to ensure that text of notification is available to the public. He has submitted that the golden rule of interpretation of a statute is in its literary meaning. Hence, both the clauses are complete sentences and independent of each other and each sub-section should be read separately with the principal clause of the sentence. Hence, sub-section (4)(b) of section 25 of the Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 14(2) thereof when there may not have been any warrant to do so since the interpretation of Section 14(2) would be governed by the dictum in Ganesh Das Bhojraj on the pari materia wording of Section 25(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court judgement in Param Industries Limited did not have any occasion to deal with Section 25 of the Act. Even though the dictum in the Supreme Court judgement may be seen to be applicable in a situation covered by Section 14(2) of the Act, it cannot govern Section 25 thereof in view of the special feature of sub-section (4) that qualifies the more general provision of sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act. 25. Clause (b) of Section 25(4) of the Act does not admit of construction that the notification as published in the Official Gazette must be offered for sale. If copies of the notification which has been published in the Official Gazette or has been required to be published in the Official Gazette at the first available opportunity, are put on sale, the statutory command is complied with. At any rate, the civil liability that arises upon a notification coming into force upon it being issued for publication in the Official Gazette cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.2013. The aforesaid notification was amended vide Notification dated No.1/2013Customs dated 21.01.2013 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Act. From the contents of the letter dated 28.02.2013 it is apparent that the Notification No.1/2013Customs dated 21.01.2013 was received in the Press on 21.01.2013 at 9:45 p.m. The same was printed in the Gazette of India on 01.02.2013 and was dispatched to Kitab Mahal on 04.02.2013 vide Press Gate Pass No.C35647. (16) Section 25(4)(a) (b) of the Act governs the issuance of Notification to grant exemption from duty. The same reads thus: Section 25: Power to grant exemption from duty (1) (2) 2A) (3) (4) Every Notification issued under sub-section( 1)(or sub-section 2A) shall, (a) unless otherwise provided, come into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette; (b) also be published and offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where a notification comes into force o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, the proposition of law enunciated in the case of Param Industries Limited (supra) will govern the controversy raised in the present petition. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court and the Apex Court in case of Param Industries Limited (supra) while dealing with issuance of notification issued under section 14(2) of the Act has considered the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 25 of the Act has observed that for bringing the notification into force and making it effective, two conditions are mandatory, viz., (1) Notification should be duly published in the official gazette, (2) it should be offered for sale on the date of issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi. Thus, in wake of the aforesaid observations, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the said decision having been rendered in the context of the only provisions of section 14(2) of the Act will not apply in the present case, is ill founded. The judgment in case of Ruchi Soya Industries Limited (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent no.2 cannot come to his rescue as the facts reveal that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
