O R D E R

The present Writ Petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to refund the excess amount of tax paid by the petitioner amounting to Rs.73,84,192/- against assessment in Bill of Entry No.5409602 dated 01.03.2018.

2.The petitioner had imported 6,000 metric tons of RBD Palm Oil pursuant to a contract with the supplier on 15.01.2018. Inrespect of the aforesaid cosignments, three bill of lading dated 24.01.2018 were issued by the shipper.

3.In this Writ Petition, we are concerned with clearance of 1000 metric tons of RBD Palm Oil cleared vide bill of entry No.5409602 dated 01.03.2018. By Notification No.50/2017- Customs dated 30.06.2017 RBD Palm Oil was subject to customs duty at 40%. This duty was sought to be enhanced to 54% vide customs Notification No.29/2018-Cus dated 01.03.2018 from 40% vide serial No.65 to Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated

30.06.2017.

4.The petitioner filed the aforesaid bill of entry dated 01.03.2018 to clear 1000 metric tons of RBD Palm Oil. Earlier, the consignment vide Bill of Entry No.5071127 dated 05.02.2018 and bill of entry No.5409602 dated 01.3.2018. The Notification No.29/2018-cus dated 01.03.2018 which enhanced the rate of customs duty from 40% to 54% was digitally signed and published

5.Since, the rate of duty was sought to be enhanced vide notification No.29/18-Cus dated 01.03.2018, the petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging the notification enhancing the rate of customs duty from 40% to 54% before the Hon'ble Andhra High Court and before this Court in W.P.No.21207 of 2018. The Andhra High Court by its order dated 28.09.2019 interpreted Section 25(1) and 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and concluded as follows:-

76.In view of the law declared by the Courts with regard to interpretation of taxing statutes, it is clear that when the amended provision or any provision of the statute creates serious inconvenience, serious absurdity, confusion or friction, contradiction and conflict between its various provisions, the same is illegal and amendment of sub-section (4) of Section 25 giving effect to the notification from the date of its issue for publication in the Gazette is an arbitrary exercise of power by the Legislature and it is totally contrary to the purport of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2-A) of Section 25 of the Act, which mandates publication of notification in the official Gazette. Therefore, to avoid inconvenience, serious absurdity, confusion or friction, contradiction and conflict between various provisions, amended provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 25 which is enacted by arbitrary exercise of power by the Legislature, is liable to be struck down.

77. The notification was published on

06.03.2018 which is impugned in these writ petitions, published electronically on 06.03.2018. In view of the decision taken by the Government of India in terms of Section 8 of the Income Tax Act, to avoid physical printing of Gazette notification to publish the same exclusively by electronic mode, so as to attribute knowledge to the public at large. The notification was signed by Rakesh Sukul on 06.03.2018 at 19:15:13 + 05'30'. When notification needs to be signed digitally and only when the notification was uploaded and published in the Official Gazette, the same is made available foro public. Perhaps, to avoid such contingency to give effect to the notification on the date of publication, the Government of India amended sub- section (4) of Section 25 of Customs Act, 1962. But, sub-section (1) and sub-section (2-A) of Section 25 were not suitably amended and they remained as it is. Therefore, sub-sections (1), (2-A) and (4) of Section 25 are running contra to one another, creating confusion in the minds of public at large, atleast to the person who is dealing with the department. Thus, it is evident from the record that the notification was not signed atleast by the competent authority on the date of presentation of ex-bond bill of entry before the