1. Duty demands following amendments to Rules 9 and 49 — retrospective effect — limitation period under Section 11-A of the Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 73
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., N.P.Singh, S.C.Agrawal, JJ.
Morarji Goculdas Bandw Company Limited
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 320 of 1983, 321 , 521 , 528 , 530 , 532 , 537 , 2
Date of Decision : 1/17/95
Section 11-A of the Act imposes a six-month limitation period for the Revenue to make demands following an amendment, regardless of the retrospective date to which the rules are applied.
Headnote:(A) Act - Section 11-A - Rules 9 and 49 - Retrospective effect of amendments - Limitation period - Demand for duty, even if retrospective, must be made within a period of six months from the date of the amendment as per Section 11-A. (Para 1)
(B) Natural Justice - Opportunity to be heard - Orders shall not be passed by authorities without giving an opportunity to the assessee to make representations against the proposed orders. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The assessees challenged the retrospective application of amendments to Rules 9 and 49 dating back to 1944, contending that such application would require the payment of an enormous amount of duty and cause great hardship.
Findings of Court:
The Revenue is entitled to realize dues in cases where notices under Section 11-A have been served and claims raised within six months from the relevant date. In cases where notices have not yet been served, the Revenue is entitled to serve them within the time limit prescribed by Section 11-A. Any dispute regarding the service of notice shall be decided by the competent authority.
Issues: Whether the Revenue could recover dues retrospectively from 1944 and the applicable limitation period for serving notices under Section 11-A.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 11-A engrafts a rule of limitation of six months; therefore, any demand must be made within six months from the date of the amendment, which mitigates the hardship caused by the retrospective effect of the rules.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Retrospective application of rule amendments — claim of enormous duty liability — contention of great hardship to assessees. (Para 1 )
3. Section 11-A(1) of the Act establishes a six-month limitation period for making demands from the date of amendment, mitigating retrospective hardship. (Para 1 )
4. Demands following rule amendments must be made within six months from the date of amendment pursuant to the limitation rule in Section 11-A(1). (Para 1 )
5. Revenue entitled to realize dues if notices served within Section 11-A time limits — assessees granted opportunity for representation — bank guarantees available for realization. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. What is the limitation period for the Revenue to make demands following amendments to rules under Section 11-A of the Act?
Under Section 11-A(1) of the Act, a rule of limitation of six months is engrafted, requiring that demands be made within six months from the date of the amendment. (Para 1 )
7. Does the retrospective application of rule amendments cause undue hardship if Section 11-A of the Act is applicable?
No, the court held that apprehensions of great hardship due to retrospective effect are misplaced because Section 11-A(1) limits the period within which demands must be made. (Para 1 )
8. What procedural safeguards must be observed by the Revenue when realizing dues under Section 11-A of the Act?
The Revenue must serve notices within the prescribed time limit, and authorities cannot pass orders without providing the assessee an opportunity to make representations against proposed orders. (Para 2 )
(1) IN this group of cases common questions arise for determination. They are covered by the decision of this court in J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union of india. By the said decision this court upheld as legal and valid the amendments made to Rules 9 and 49. It was argued that if the amendments are given retrospective effect from the date the rules were framed, i.e., from 28/2/1944, the assessees would be required to pay an enormous amount of duty. This court appreciated the contention that if the duty has to be paid with retrospective effect from 1944 it would undoubtedly cause great hardship to the assessees but concluded that in view of Section 11 -A of the Act such an apprehension was misplaced. Pointing to clause (1 of Section I I-A it held that it engrafts a rule of limitation of six months and since the proviso to Section 11-A is not applicable the demand though it may Include even a demand for more than six months must be made within a period of six months from the date of the amendment.
(2) HAVING considered the facts in this group of cases, in our view, in the light of the observation in J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills it would be appropriate to direct that in cases where notices under Section 11-A of the Act have been served and the claims are raised within a period of six months from the relevant date, the Revenue would be entitled to realise the dues. In case of dispute as to whether the notice under Section 11-A had been served or not the Assistant Collector will decide the issue. However, in cases where the notices have not been served as yet the Revenue would be entitled to do so within the time limit prescribed by Section 11-A of the Act. In either of the aforesaid eventualities orders will not be passed by the authorities without giving an opportunity to the assessee to make representations against the proposed orders. If notices have already been served for the aforesaid purpose the assessees would have eight weeks time from today to reply or to make a representation.
(3) THE bank guarantees furnished by the assessees shall be made available for realisation of dues, if any, by the Revenue.
(4) THE interim orders shall stand modified as above.
(5) THE appeals will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
