IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.2149 OF 1998 (TAX-TAR) BETWEEN:
1. WIPRO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED (NAME SINCE CHANGED TO WIPRO LIMITED) AN EXISTING COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 146, BELAGOLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSURU REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY MR. SATISH MENON.
2. MR. SEKHARIPURAM RAMASWAMY GOPALAN SON OF SEKHARIPURAM VENKATESWARIER RAMASWAMY, A SHAREHOLDER CARE OF WIPRO LIMITED (FORMERLY WIPRO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED), 88, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI: SANDEEP HULIGAL, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. KING AND PARTRIDGE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS KARNATAKA CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE C. R. BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
2. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AIR CARGO COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 017.
3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ALL SECRETARIES MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW DELHI.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSOCIATES) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 27 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1977 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.03.1998 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.4150 OF 1991 AND ETC., ***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.1998 passed in Writ petition No.4150 of 1991 by the learned Single Judge.
2. What was challenged before the learned Single Judge was the validity of the notice issued under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, in respect of collection of duty on loading, unloading and handling charges. That the said provisions of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, is violative under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
3. It is presently submitted at the Bar that the very question of law was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of WIPRO LTD., Vs. ASSISANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS in Civil Appeal Nos.9766-9775 of 2003. By the order dated 16.04.2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“36. We are, therefore, of the opinion that impugned amendment, namely, proviso (ii) to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 introduced vide Notification dated 05.07.1990 is unsustainable and bad in law as it exists in the present form and it has to be read down to mean that this clause would apply only when actual charges referred to in Clause (b) are not ascertainable.
37. As a result, judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to cost.”
Hence, it is pleaded that the appeal be allowed in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. In view of the submissions made, the writ appeal is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.03.1998 passed in Writ Petition No.4150 of 1991, is set aside.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-