SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE pclitioncr seeks the quashing of the order of second respondent as affirmed by respondents 2 and 3 and seeks further a writ of mandamus directing them to grant refund sought by the petitioner earlier from them.

( 2 ) THE pclilioncr carries on business of manufacturing and sale of poly vinyl chloride footwear having the manufacturing unit at rajajinagar, Bangalore. For this purpose the petitioner requires poly vinyl chloride resin. The petitioner used to import the same from foreign countries such as singapore, korea and u. s. a.

( 3 ) BY a notification dated 15th march, 1979 the government of India exempted the whole of the basic duly on the import of this material. This notification was in force upto 31st august, 1979. By another notification of the said date the exemption was extended upto 31st march, 1980, which was again extended upto 31st march, 1981. Thus, according to the pclitioncr the whole of the import duly on the goods in qucslion was ex empted upto 31sl march, 1981. During this period the pclitioncr cnlcred into a contract with an american company on 9th July,, 1980 as well as on 16th July, 1980 for supply of the said goods to the petitioner, for which purpose the pclilioncr opened idlers of credit through state bank of India, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The goods arrived in India during November and december, 1980. The customs department demanded duly thereon purporting to relied upon a notification dated 16lh october, 1980 (Annexure-D ). As per this notification the earlier notifications were superseded, on the central government being satisfied that it was necessary in the public interest so to do and exempted the goods in question when imported into India from so much of the duty of customs as in excess of 40% advatorcm. The result is the import duty payable was 60% of the prescribed rale. The petitioner paid the same under protest and cleared the goods. Thereafter the petitioner ap plied for refund of the two sums of Rs. 92,61/- 31/- and Rs. 99,570-32/ -. The refund applica tions were rejected and have thus become the subject matter of this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into contract with the foreign company at a time when the exemption notifications were in force and the petitioner entered into such an agreement in view of the representation held out that the duties were exempted under those notifications and therefore according to the petitioner the respondents were estopped from levying any duty eventhough the goods actually reached India after those notifica tions were superseded. According to the petitioner, the earlier three notifications exempt ing import duty governed the importation of the goods in question because the pctilioncr had acted upon the said notifications while entering into the contract with the foreign seller. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is thus sought to be extended to the imporlation in question and the levy of duty thereon.

( 5 ) THE learned senior standing counsel for central government raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition before this court. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the imporlation of the goods and the levy of the duty in question were at Bombay and the petitioner filed the applications for refund at Bombay and the entire cause of action for the writ petition arose outside Karnataka and therefore this court's writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. The learned counsel also submitted, on merits of the case and con tended that the power of exemption traced to Section 25 of the custom's act is not an executive power, but a legislative power and therefore the doctrine of estoppel was not applicable; there cannot be any estoppel against the exercise of the legislative power.

( 6 ) TWO questions therefore arise for con sideration: (1) whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition? (2) whether the pctilioncr is entitled

Click Here to Read the rest of this document