UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus A. B. P. PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 1115 · Decided: 12-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1115
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
A. B. P. PVT. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 986 of 2011)
MAY 12, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Customs Act, 1962– s.25(1)– Exercise of power under – Grant/
withdrawal/amendment of exemption– Judicial review of –
Respondent-assessee imported one set of High Speed Cold-Set Web
Offset Rotary Printing Machine with minimum speed of 70,000
copies per hour – Claimed exemption from payment of the duty
relying upon the First Notification which provided for levy of custom
duty on the said imported machinery at a concessional rate of 5% –
However, the said notification was amended through a fresh
notification which shifted the benefit of the concessional rate from
the aforesaid imported machinery to High Speed Coldset Web Offset
Rotary Double Width Four Plate Wide Printing Machine with a
minimum speed of 70,000 copies per hour – Writ petition filed by
assessee for declaring the amended notification ultra vires s.25(1) –
Amended notification set aside by High Court on the ground that
withdrawal of the concession could not be said to facilitate
indigenous manufacturers – Held: Once it is recognized that it is
the executive’s exclusive domain, in fiscal and economic matters to
determine the nature of classification, the extent of levy to be imposed,
and the factors relevant for either granting, refusing or amending
exemptions, the role of the court is confined to decide if its decision
is backed by reasons, germane, and not irrelevant to the matter –
Judicial scrutiny can also extend to consideration of legality, and
bona fides of the decision – The wisdom or unwisdom, and the
soundness of reasons, or their sufficiency, cannot be proper subject
matters of judicial review – In the present case, the impugned
judgment virtually conducted a merits review of the concerned
economic measure – Every action of the executive government,
including exercise of its power to grant or withdraw tax exemption
should be suffused with public interest – The indigenous angle, i.e.
availability of equipment, cannot be characterized as an irrelevant
factor/consideration, since grant of exemption to a class of goods
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 1115
1115
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
similar to those manufactured within the country and its likely
adverse impact on such manufacturers or producers, is germane
and relevant – No mala fides or oblique considerations were pleaded
or urged – The exercise of power was in line with the provisions of
the Act – Impugned judgment set aside.
Vivek Narayan Sharma (Demonetisation Case-5 J.) v.
Union of India [2023] 1 SCR 1 – followed.
Kasinka Trading & Anr. v. Union of India [1994] Supp
4 SCR 448 – relied on.
MRF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2006] Suppl. 6
SCR 417; Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. v. State of
Haryana [2006] 2 SCR 1172 – distinguished.
Dai-ichi Karkaria Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
(2000) 4 SCC 57 : [2000] 2 SCR 1254; M.M
Nagalingam Nadar Sons v. State of Kerela (1993) 91
STC 61; Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India
(1997) 3 SCC 398 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 888; Bannari
Amman Sugars Ltd v. CTO [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 264;
Prashanti Medical Services & Research Foundation v.
Union of India [2019] 9 SCR 828; Indian Express
Newspapers v. Union of India [1985] 2 SCR 287 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1985] 2 SCR 287
referred to
Para 6
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 448
relied on
Para 12
[2000] 2 SCR 1254
referred to
Para 14
[2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 417
distinguished
Para 14
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 888
referred to
Para 15
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 264
referred to
Para 15
[2006] 2 SCR 1172
distinguished
Para 25
[2019] 9 SCR 828
referred to
Para 26
[2023] 1 SCR 1
followed
Para 28
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 986 of
2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2008 of the High Court
of Calcutta in APOT No. 433 of 2007.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1117
N. Venkatraman, ASG, Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Adit Khorana, Vanshaja Shukla, Santosh
Kumar, Ms. Preeti Rani, Rupesh Kumar, Gunmaya Mann,
Chandrashekhar Bharati, I. Prasad, Dharma Datta Verma, Advs. for
the Appellants.
Raghav Shankar, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Sonia Nigam, Karanveer
Singh Anand, Yashwant Gaggar, M/s. Karanjawala & Co., Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. This civil appeal arises from a judgment1 of the Calcutta High
Court which held the withdrawal of a customs notification inval

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