AMIN MERCHANT versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & REVENUE & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 22-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 488 
AMIN MERCHANT 
v. 
CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & REVENUE & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4676-4677 of2013) 
JULY 22, 2016 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.) 
Judicial review: Interference of the court sought by assessee 
C 
on the ground that rate prescribed for goods under tariff heading 
is higher than that authorised in the Budget proposals put forth by 
the Finance Minister - Held: Proposals of the Finance Minister in 
Parliament are not the enactments of the Parliament - Even assuming 
that the amount of tax is excessive, in the matters of taxation laws, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the Court permits greater latitude to the discretion of the legislature 
and it is not amenable to judici~l review - Tax/Taxation. 
Customs Act, 1962: s.25 - Power to grant exemption from 
duty - Held: s.25 delegates power to the Central Government i.e. 
· the executive branch to grant exemption generally from duty 
whenever it finds that it is necessary to do so in the larger public 
interest either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be 
specified in the notification or by a special order in ea<!h case under 
exceptional circumstances. 
Constitution of India: Art.14 -A Taxing Statute can be held 
to contravene Article 14 of the Constitution if it purports to impose 
qertain duty on the same class of people differently and leads to 
obvious inequality - When the assessee alleges discriminatory action 
on the part of the revenue, he has to establish that there is no rational 
basis for making classification between the goods which are notified 
and the goods of the appellant which are not notified. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Every legislation is done with the object of public 
good. Taxation is a unilateral decision of the Parliament and it is 
the exercise of the sovereign power. The financial proposals put 
forth by the Finance Minister reflects the governmental view for. 
raising revenue to meet the expenditure for the financial year 
and it is the financial policy of the Central Government. The 
488 
AMIN MERCHANT v. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF 
489 
EXCISE & REVENUE 
Finance Minister's speech only highlights the more important 
proposals of the budget. Those are not the enactments by the 
Parliament. The law as enacted is what is contained in the Finance 
Act. After it is legislated upon by the Parliament and a rate of 
duty that is prescribed in relation to a particular Tariff Head that 
constitutes the authoritative expression of the legislative will of 
Parliament. Now in the facts of this case, as per the finance bill, 
the legislative will of the Parliament is that for the commodities 
falling under Tariff Head 2208.10, the tariff is Rs.300/- per litre 
or 400% whichever is higher. Even assuming that the amount of 
tax is excessive, in the matters of taxation laws, the Court permits 
greater latitude to the discretion of the legislature and it is not 
amenable to judicial review. [Para 31] [500-D-F] 
2. 
As per Section 159 of the Act, any notification issued 
under Section 25 shall be placed before the Parliament and the 
Parliament may amend or reject the same. This clearly 
demonstrates that the ultimate law making power is vested with 
the Legislature. Hence, the allegation of the appellant that the 
notifications are issued basing on the whims and fancies of the 
2"d, respondent is misconceived. Whereas, notifications are issued 
generally in the larger public interest, the Legislature has given 
A 
B 
c 
D 
the power to exempt duty to the 2"d respondent subject to the 
amending power. In the matter of taxation, the Court gives a "E 
greater latitude to the legislative discretion. , [Para 32] [501-G-
H; 502-A-B] 
3. When the appellant alleges discriminatory action on the 
part of the respondents, he has to establish that there is no rational 
basis for making classification between the goods which are 
notified and the goods of the appellant which are not notified. It 
is also a firmly established principle that the legislature 
understands and appreciates the needs of its people. A Taxing 
Statute can be held to contravene Article 14 of the Constitution if, 
it purports to impose certain duty on the same class of people 
differently and leads to obvious inequality. Such a material is not 
placed to prove that the action of the respondents is 
discriminative. Hence, the same is held against the appellant. 
[Paras 34, 35] [502-F-G] 
Bussa Overseas and Properties (Pvt.) Ltd

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.