Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1028
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Aarti Drugs Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Notice to be served, through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 31254 of 2024
Decided On : 07-07-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr Prasannan Namboodiri, with ms Pallavi Dabak.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, with Ms Sangeeta Yadav & Mr. Rupesh Dubey.
The court determined it cannot direct legislative changes in customs tariff or correct alleged errors, as such matters fall within legislative competence and judicial review is not applicable.
Headnote:(A) Customs Tariff Act, 2022 - Chapter 29, sub-heading 293359 - Writ of certiorari and mandamus sought to correct alleged clerical errors and revise tariff rate - Court ruled it cannot direct legislative changes or correct legislative errors. (Paras 6, 10, 14)
(B) Judicial Review - Courts cannot interfere in legislative matters unless ultra vires - Legislative intent is definitive once enacted. (Para 11)
(C) Representation - Court may request disposal of representation but cannot grant mandamus as a matter of right. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought correction of tariff errors relating to customs duty from 10% to 7.5%, contending legislative errors occurred.
Findings of Court:
Reliefs sought were not granted since they would require the Court to direct legislative alterations.
Issues: Whether the court can correct legislative provisions and the extent of judicial review in legislative matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled it does not possess the jurisdiction to issue directions correcting legislative errors, which lie within legislative competence, not judicial.
Result: Petition disposed of without an order for costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks relief for customs tariff error. (Para 2) |
| 2. contentions regarding rectification of tariff. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. opposition to granting relief based on legislative authority. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's observation on legislative competence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. authority to intervene in legislative terms limited. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. court cannot grant retrospective effect on legislation. (Para 14) |
| 7. petitioner not entitled to mandamus but representation will be reviewed. (Para 15) |
| 8. court disposed of petition without costs. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs: -
a. That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records in the proceedings of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 in the matter of omission of tariff items under sub-heading 293359 of Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff from Third Schedule of the Finance Act, 2022;
b. That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/directions to Respondent No. 1 & 2 to revise the tariff rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) for tariff items under sub-heading 293359 from 10% to 7.5% w.e.f. 01.05.2022’
c. That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may direct the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to decide upon the Representation dated 23.03.2024 of the Petitioner requesting to revise the tariff rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) for tariff items under sub-heading 293359 from 10% to 7.5% w.e.f. 01.05.2022;”
3. Regarding prayer clauses (a) and (b), the learned Counsel strenuously submitted that the customs tariff, in so far as it concerns sub-heading 293359 of Chapter 29, is concerned, obvious errors, which he describes as “clerical errors”, have crept in. He submits that this Court should issue either a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus directing its correction.
4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the errors have now been corrected; however, such corrections/changes are to take effect from either 1 February 2025 or 1 May 2025. He submits that since that was an error, the same ought to have been corrected with retrospective effect and therefore, reliefs in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) deserve to be granted.
5. In the alternate, he submits that relief in terms of prayer clause (c) may be granted by issuing time bound directions to Respondents 1 and 2 to decide Petitioner’s representation dated 23 March 2024 for revision of the tariff rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) for the tariff items under the sub-heading 293359 from 10% to 7.5% effective from 1 May 2022.
6. Mr Mishra opposes the grant of any reliefs in this Petition by pointing out that once a particular tariff heading is prescribed, that constitutes the authoritative expression of the legislative will of the parliament, and the Courts cannot exercise their powers of judicial review in such matters. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amin Merchant Vs Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Revenue, [ 2016 (338) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.) ] to support his contention. Accordingly, he submits that this Petition is misconceived and may be dismissed.
7. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
8. As noted above, the Petitioner claims that there is an “omission” or “obvious error” or “clerical error” in the customs tariff relating to sub-heading 293359 of Chapter 29 from the 3rd Schedule of the Finance Act, 2022. Accordingly, the Petitioner seeks a writ from this Court for correction of this so-called error in the customs tariff.
9. On the Petitioner’s own showing, certain changes were brought about in the finance bill from 1 May 2025 or, in terms of the notification dated 1 February 2025, effective from 1 February 2025, by which such so
