Supreme Court Overrules Precedent on High Court's Discretion Under Section 130A Customs Act — High Court Not Mandatorily Required to Call for Statement from Tribunal Before Deciding Reference Application. The Court held that the word 'if' in Section 130A(4) confers discretion, not a mandatory obligation.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arose from a reference order to a larger Bench concerning the interpretation of Section 130A(1) and (4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue, represented by Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, relied on an earlier two-judge Bench decision in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Central Manufacturing Tech. Institute, which held that the High Court could not express views on merits at the stage of deciding a reference application and must call for a statement from the Tribunal. The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 130A(4), noting that it opens with the word 'if', which confers discretion on the High Court. The Court found nothing in the section that mandates the High Court to call for a statement in every case. Consequently, the earlier decision was overruled as incorrect. The Court answered the question accordingly and disposed of the appeals.

Headnote

A) Customs Law - Reference to High Court - Section 130A(4) Customs Act, 1962 - Discretion of High Court - The issue was whether the High Court must mandatorily call for a statement from the Tribunal before deciding a reference application. The Supreme Court held that the word 'if' in sub-section (4) indicates discretion, not mandate. The High Court may, on the facts of each case, either call for a statement or reject the application without doing so. The earlier decision in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Central Manufacturing Tech. Institute was overruled as incorrect. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether under Section 130A(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, the High Court is mandatorily required to call for a statement from the Appellate Tribunal before deciding an application for reference of a question of law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court answered the question by holding that the High Court has discretion under Section 130A(4) and is not mandatorily required to call for a statement from the Tribunal. The earlier decision in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Central Manufacturing Tech. Institute was overruled as incorrect. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Law Points

  • Section 130A Customs Act
  • 1962
  • High Court discretion
  • reference application
  • mandatory requirement
  • statement of case
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (SC) (2) 25

Civil Appeal No. 6021 of 2009

2020-02-11

Rohinton Fali Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa

M/S Adani Exports Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against order of High Court regarding reference application under Section 130A Customs Act

Remedy Sought

Revenue sought to challenge the High Court's order rejecting reference application without calling for statement from Tribunal

Filing Reason

Dispute over interpretation of Section 130A(4) whether High Court must mandatorily call for statement from Tribunal

Previous Decisions

High Court rejected reference application; earlier Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Central Manufacturing Tech. Institute held High Court must call for statement

Issues

Whether under Section 130A(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, the High Court is mandatorily required to call for a statement from the Appellate Tribunal before deciding an application for reference of a question of law.

Submissions/Arguments

Revenue argued that the High Court must call for a statement from the Tribunal before deciding a reference application, relying on Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Central Manufacturing Tech. Institute.

Ratio Decidendi

The word 'if' in Section 130A(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 confers discretion on the High Court to decide whether to call for a statement from the Appellate Tribunal; there is no mandatory obligation to do so in every case.

Judgment Excerpts

We do not find anything in the text of Section 130A which implies that the High Court is mandatorily required to call for a statement from the Tribunal in every case, where a reference is made. We say so because of the language of Sub-Section 4 which opens with an ‘if’. The judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore (supra) being incorrect is therefore overruled.

Procedural History

The matter was referred to a larger Bench by order dated 14.03.2018. The Supreme Court heard the appeals and disposed of them by the present judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Customs Act, 1962: 130A(1), 130A(4)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Overrules Precedent on High Court's Discretion Under Section 130A Customs Act — High Court Not Mandatorily Required to Call for Statement from Tribunal Before Deciding Reference Application. The Court held that the word 'if' in Sectio...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Council of Architecture's Authority Over AICTE in Architectural Education Matters — Conflict Between Two Regulatory Bodies Resolved in Favor of Special Statute. The Court held that the Architects Act, 1972, being a special sta...