Tax Laws passed by Legislature not open to judicial review – SC

Brief of the Case

In the case of AMIN MERCHANT V/s CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & REVENUE & ORS., it was held that the Finance Minister’s speech only highlights the more important proposals of the budget. Those are not the enactments by the Parliament. After it is legislated upon by the Parliament and a rate of duty that is prescribed in relation to a particular Tariff Head that constitutes the authoritative expression of the legislative will of Parliament. Even assuming that the amount of tax is excessive, in the matters of taxation laws, the Court permits greater latitude to the discretion of the legislature and it is not amenable to judicial review.

Brief facts

The appellant imported eight consignments of goods falling under Tariff Sub-Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff, namely, “Compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages” during the financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The customs authorities assessed the goods imported provisionally and subjected them to a prescribed rate of duty of Rs.300/- per liter or 400% whichever is higher specified in respect of Sub-Heading 2208.10 of the Customs Tariff for 1993-94 and 1994-95. The appellant claims to have deposited the amount of duty provisionally assessed on the assessable value declared in the eight bills of entry. According to the appellant, he cleared the goods for home consumption during financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Between the years 1994 and 2001, the appellant addressed several communications, inter alia, to the Central Board of Excise and Customs and to the Tariff Research Unit (TRU) of the Union Ministry of Finance. The grievance of the appellant is that the rate which has been prescribed for goods falling under Tariff Sub-Heading 2208.10 is higher than that was authorized in the Budget Proposals during financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The appellant took recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act in order to procure relevant information from the concerned authorities. According to the appellant, the authorities have not furnished the relevant information.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.