SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Mad) 388

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P. G. NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VARADARAJAN
Assistant Collector of Customs Madras - Appellant
Versus
Premraj and Ganapatraj and Company P. Limited - Respondent
Case No : Writ Appeal No. 250 of 1977
Decided On : 24 August 1977

Advocates Appeared: For

No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.

Headnote:

Tax - Authority of Law - The court held that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. The duty imposed was found to be without the authority of law, and therefore, there was no jurisdiction to impose or collect the tax. The provisions of the Constitution must prevail despite the difficulties faced by the authorities in directing refund.

Fact of the Case:

The duty imposed was found to be without the authority of law, leading to the conclusion that there was no jurisdiction to impose or collect the tax.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the provisions of the Constitution must prevail, and chose to write a speaking order due to the extensive arguments presented.

Issues: The main issue was the imposition and collection of tax without the authority of law, leading to the question of jurisdiction to impose and collect the tax.

Ratio Decidendi: The duty imposed was without the authority of law, and therefore, the provisions of the Constitution must prevail, despite any difficulties faced by the authorities in directing refund.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court.

Judgment :-

"No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law."

The duty that has been levied-we assume that the duty that has been imposed is also a tax within the meaning of Art. 265 of the Constitution and no point was taken in this regard before us, was certainly without the authority of law. There is, therefore, no jurisidiction either to impose the tax or collect the same. This being so, the provisions of the Constitution must prevail notwithstanding the difflculties that may be experienced by the authorities who function under the Act in directing refund.

2.Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court reported inMadras Rubber Factoryv.Union of India, where an order of the Central Government passed in further proceedings from an order under S. 27 of the Customs Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in an appeal taken from that order by special leave granted by the Supreme Court. In that appeal, the Supreme Court could not have exercised its jurisidiction under Art. 32 of the Constitution but could only have decided the question whether the authority functioning under the Act had acted in accordance with law. This decision is distinguishable. No decision of the Supreme Court where it had refused to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution in an application for refund of tax collected without the authority of law, had been brought to our notice. In the light of the above, we dismiss the appeal. We have chosen to write a speaking order in dismissing the appeal because the matter was argued at length before us and we assume that it is not going to end here.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top