UNION OF INDIA versus A.V NARASIMHALU

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 01-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
-
G 
H 
UNION OF INDIA 
l'. 
A. V. NARASIMHALU 
September 1, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Civil Courts-Exclusioll of jurisdiction-Sea Custo1ns Act, 1878, ss. 
188, 191. 
Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, provides fOr an 
appeal 
against any order of an officer of customs and the order passed in tht-
appeal is made final subject to the, revision under s. 191 of the Act. The 
respondent claimed refund of customs duty paid by him under protest. 
The claim was rejected. 
An appeal to the Collector of Customs and a 
revision to the Central Board of Revenue were unsuccessful. The respon-
dent instituted an action in the Civil Court for refund of the amount. The 
trial court decreed the suit but the first appellate court held that the civil 
court had ·no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The High Court, in further 
appeal, restored the de.cree of the trial court. 
A11owing the appeal, this 
Court, 
HELD : The civil court had no jurisdiction to 
entertain the -suit. 
[146 G-HJ 
Where a statute creates a new right or liability and it provid(:S a com-
plete machinery for obtaining redress against erroneous exercise of autho-
rity, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant relief is barred. Where however 
a statute re-enacts a right or liabilitv existing at common law, and the 
statute provides a special form of remedy, exclusion of the jurisdiction of 
the Civil Court" to grant relief in the absence of an express provision will 
not be readily inferred. [149 D-F] 
Liability to pay duty of customs is not a common law liability; 
it 
arises by virtue of the Sea Customs Act. 
In respect of any 
grievance 
arising in consequence of enforcement of that liability, 
machinery 
has 
been provided by the Act. 
Having regard to the complicated nature of 
the questions which arise in the determination of liability to pay duty of 
customs, the 1-egislature has invested the power of determining liability and 
the manner of enforcement thereof upon a specially authorised hierarchy 
of tribunals. [149 F-G] 
(ii) A civil suit will lie for obtaining ·appropriate relief 
in 
cases 
where the customs authority has not complied with the prvvisions of the 
statute, or the officer of customs has not acted il' confGrn1ity with the 
fundamental principles of judicial procedure or the authority has acted in 
violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or has made 
an order which is not within his competence or the statute which imposes 
liability is unconstitutional or the order is alleged to be mala fide. [149 H; 
150 Al 
(iii) The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain 
a suit does not exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high 
prerogativ~ writs against illegal exercise of authority by administrative or 
quasi judicial tribunals. [150 B-CJ 
Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Madras Pradesh & Anr. A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 78, 
followed. 
Secretary of State for India v. Mask & Co. L.R. 67 I.A. 222, referred to: 
146 
• 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1970] 2 S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELL A TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 136 J of 
A 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order da:ed 
April 5, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 
1287 of 1960. 
Niren De, Attorney-General, V. A. Seyid Muhammad, R. N. 
B 
Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. 
Lily Thomas, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. A. V. Narasimhalu-hereinafter called "the plaintiff" 
imported 43 reels of newsprint 13f' width under a lJil! of Entry 
dated July 15, 1954. The width of the newsprint being less than 
15" no import duty was payable under the Open General Licence 
The Assistant Collector of Customs held that the comrnodity 
imported fell within item 44 of the Customs Tariff and levied a 
duty of 33~% ad valorem. 
The plaintiff paid the duty under 
protest, and applied for refund or the duty relying upon a decision 
of the High Court of Madras in writ p.;tition No. 402 of 1954 
in which it was decided that newsprint of width less than 15" was 
exempt from duty. 
This application was rejected. 
An appeal 
to the Collector of Customs and a revision application to tlte 
Central Board of 
Revenue were 
unsuccessful. 
The customs 
authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the claim "not 
having been made within three months of the date of demand was 
ban-ed under s. 40 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. 
The plaintiff then instituted a

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