Top
Top Stories

Article 32 Is Very Valuable Jurisdiction To Safeguard Fundamental Rights, It Cannot Be used To Short-Circuit The Process In Revenue Litigation

Mehal Jain
23 Nov 2020 2:25 PM GMT
Article 32 Is Very Valuable Jurisdiction To Safeguard Fundamental Rights, It Cannot Be used To Short-Circuit The Process In Revenue Litigation
x

"Article 32 is a very valuable jurisdiction. It is meant to be a safeguard for Fundamental Rights. It cannot be used to short-circuit the process", said Justice D. Y. Chandrachud on Monday.The bench of Justices Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee was hearing a writ petition by Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. challenging the valuation of imported aluminium scrap by the...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

"Article 32 is a very valuable jurisdiction. It is meant to be a safeguard for Fundamental Rights. It cannot be used to short-circuit the process", said Justice D. Y. Chandrachud on Monday.

The bench of Justices Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee was hearing a writ petition by Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. challenging the valuation of imported aluminium scrap by the custom authorities.
"Article 32 is not meant for this. Where Article 136 appeals, proceedings before the CESTAT are there, the grievance cannot come under 32", said Justice Chandrachud.
"This not where Article 32 jurisdiction is exercisable. Good effort to short-circuit the process!", he commented, refusing to entertain the plea.
"But crores of rupees are being spent on litigation! It is a wastage of time, money and effort, both for me and the government!", pressed Senior Advocate R. Balasubramanian, for the petitioner.
"In revenue litigation, where there are 100s of cases pending adjudication before the Commissioner and other authorities, the Supreme Court can't look into the facts of each of them! If we consider this plea, we will have to look into the bill of entry in each case! The Supreme Court can't function like this!", observed Justice Chandrachud.
"There are judgments of this Court on the issue- in Sanjivini (Sanjivini Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd.; 2018), one on your own plea (Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd.; 2019), another recent one...the Customs department is bound by them", said the judge, allowing the withdrawal of the plea.


Next Story
Share it