M/S. GRANULES INDIA LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1182 · Decided: 23-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
M/S. GRANULES INDIA LTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 593-594 of 2020)
JANUARY 23, 2020
[NAVIN SINHA AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Customs Act, 1962:
Customs duty – Exemption from – Entitlement – Revenue
imported consignment under one advance licence issued prior to
19.5.1992 – Part of consignment was imported prior to 25.11.1993
and the rest subsequent thereto – Assessee sought exemption from
customs duty in terms of Custom Notifications dated 19.5.1992 –
Revenue allowed exemption from customs duty in respect of part of
the consignments which were actually imported prior to 25.11.1993
i.e. the date of Notifications whereby the exemption was withdrawn
– The exemption claim was rejected in respect to the part of the
remaining consignment which was imported after 25.11.1993
without making any reference to clarificatory notification dated
18.3.1994 whereby import of chemical was permitted without
customs duty subject to certain terms and conditions – Writ petition
of assessee dismissed by High Court – In review petition High Court
held that since the assessee did not produce the clarificatory
Notification and neither the Revenue/State was aware of that
Notification, the assessee was not entitled to any relief – Appeal to
Supreme Court – Held: In view of clarificatory Notification the
assessee is entitled to the exemption from customs duty – It is
absolutely no defence of State Authorities to contend that they were
not aware of their own Notification i.e. clarificatory Notification –
The onus heavily rests on the State – The State cannot behave like a
private litigant and rely on abstract theories of burden of proof.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1 The entire consignment was imported under one
advance licence issued to the petitioner prior to 19.05.1992. Part
of the consignment was actually imported prior to 25.11.1993 and
the rest subsequent thereto is hardly relevant in view of the
1182
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1182
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1183
clarificatory notification dated 18.03.1994 that the exemption
would continue to apply subject to fulfilment of the specified terms
and conditions. It is not the case of the respondents that the
consignments imported subsequently did not meet the terms and
conditions of the exemption. [Para 8][1186 A-C]
2. The High Court further gravely erred in holding that the
authorities of the State were also unaware of the clarificatory
notification and neither did the appellant bring it on record. The
State is the largest litigant. It stands in a category apart having a
solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation
of justice. The State cannot behave like a private litigant and rely
on abstract theories of the burden of proof. The State acts through
its officer who are given powers in trust. If the trust so reposed
is betrayed, whether by casualness or negligence, will the State
still be liable for such misdemeanor by its officers betraying the
trust so reposed in them or will the officers be individually
answerable. It is absolutely no defence of the State Authorities
to contend that they were not aware of their own notification dated
18.09.1994. The onus heavily rests on them and a casual
statement generating litigation by State apathy cannot be
approved. [Para 9][1186 E-H; 1187-A]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore (1988) 1
SCC 626 – relied on.
Shri Krishna Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Union of India
(2004) 173 ELT 14 – approved.
Case Law Reference
(2004) 173 ELT 14
approved
Para 8
(1988) 1 SCC 626
relied on
Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 593-
594 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.06.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh in Review WPMP No. 10198 of 2017 in W.P. No. 8937
of 2001 and order dated 07.12.2016 in Writ Petition No. 8937 of 2001.
M/S. GRANULES INDIA LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv., D. Bharat Kumar, Tadimalla
Bhaskar Gowtham, Aman Shukla, Abhijit Sengupta, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Tanisha Samanta,
B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
NAVIN SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by orders dated 07.12.2016 and
14.06.2017, rejecting the writ petition as also the review application a

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