Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a pharmaceutical company, invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the customs tariff applicable to sub-heading 293359 of Chapter 29 as provided in the Third Schedule of the Finance Act, 2022. The petitioner alleged that the omission of certain tariff items under that sub-heading constituted an obvious clerical or omission error that subjected it to a higher Basic Customs Duty of 10% instead of the claimed 7.5% with effect from 1 May 2022. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to call for records concerning the tariff omission, a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to revise the Basic Customs Duty rate from 10% to 7.5% with retrospective effect from 1 May 2022, and a further mandamus to decide its pending representation dated 23 March 2024. During the hearing, the petitioner contended that the errors had been subsequently corrected, but only prospectively from either 1 February 2025 or 1 May 2025, and argued that because the corrections were merely clerical, they ought to have been given retrospective effect. The respondents opposed the petition, submitting that once Parliament enacts a rate of duty for a specific tariff heading in the Finance Act, it constitutes the authoritative expression of legislative intent, and courts cannot undertake judicial review of such fiscal legislation merely on the ground of perceived errors. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Amin Merchant v Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Revenue. The court accepted the respondents' contention and held that it is not for the court to rule on what the petitioner described as errors, obvious errors, or clerical errors in a legislative instrument. The court observed that courts interpret laws and may strike down a law if it is ultra vires the Constitution, but they cannot encroach upon the legislative domain by directing the legislature to enact or correct a law. It also held that the legislature's prospective amendment does not lead to an inference that the earlier legislation contained errors, and it is ordinarily not for the court to direct that legislative changes be given retrospective effect. The court declined reliefs in prayer clauses (a) and (b). In respect of prayer clause (c), while noting that the petitioner could not as a matter of right seek a mandamus to compel the executive to decide its representation, the court nevertheless requested respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of the representation dated 23 March 2024 and a supplementary representation to be filed within two weeks, within a reasonable time, clarifying that no writ of mandamus was being issued. The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Legislative Instruments - Separation of Powers - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Courts cannot direct the legislature to correct perceived errors in customs tariff or give retrospective effect to tax changes; challenge only if law is ultra vires or lacks legislative competence; no encroachment into legislative domain (Paras 10-14). B) Customs and Central Excise - Tariff Classification and Rate of Duty - Legislative Intent - Finance Act, 2022, Third Schedule, Tariff Heading 293359 - Once Finance Act prescribes tariff rate for heading 293359, it is definitive expression of Parliamentary will; court cannot issue writ to alter Basic Customs Duty from 10% to 7.5% with effect from 01.05.2022 (Paras 8, 11-12). C) Administrative Law - Mandamus to Consider Representation - Executive Discretion - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Respondents 1 and 2 requested to dispose of representation dated 23 March 2024 and supplementary representation within reasonable time; no writ of mandamus issued as matter falls within executive domain (Paras 15-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of certiorari or mandamus can be issued to correct alleged clerical/obvious errors in customs tariff under sub-heading 293359 of Chapter 29 of the Finance Act, 2022; whether the court can direct retrospective effect to subsequent corrections; whether respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to decide the representation dated 23.03.2024
Final Decision
Petition disposed of without costs. Reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) were refused. Respondents 1 and 2 were requested to dispose of the representation dated 23.03.2024 and the supplementary representation to be filed by the petitioner within two weeks, within a reasonable time. The court clarified that no writ of mandamus was being issued.
Law Points
- Once Finance Act enacts law and prescribes rate of duty for a specific tariff heading
- it is definitive expression of legislative intent
- Courts cannot issue writs to correct perceived errors in legislative instruments
- Courts cannot direct retrospective effect to legislative changes
- only lack of legislative competence or ultra vires can invite judicial interference
- no writ of mandamus to compel decision on representation
- but executive may be requested to consider it
