75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

August 2016

Precedent – High Court should be very slow in taking a view different than the view of other High Court. [Customs Act, 1962]

By Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate; Rahul K. Hakani, Advocate
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Dharmesh Devchand Pansuriya vs. UOI 2016 (336) E.L.T 402 (Guj.)

The settlement commission under the Customs Act, 1962 had held that it had no jurisdiction. Hence, Special Civil Application was filed by the Petitioner in Gujarat High Court. It was pointed out by the revenue that view of settlement commission was supported by decision of Additional Commissioner of Customs vs. Ram Niwas Verma, reported in 2015 (323) ELT (Del) (HC) and C.S. India vs. Additional Director General, DCEI, Bangalore, 2015 (325) ELT (Karn) (HC).

It was held by the Gujarat High Court that Customs Act, 1962 being a central statute bearing tax implications, we would, even otherwise, be slow in taking different view from two reasoned judgments of other High Courts. Even if, therefore, another view was possible, for the sake of consistency, we would have respectfully followed the view of other High Courts.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Hindu Widow’s Remarriage – On remarriage of Hindu widow, she gets divested of right, title and interest in deceased husband’s property. [Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856 Section 2 ]

Right to Information Act – Information pertaining to development plan cannot be withheld by Municipal Corporation. [Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 6,8]