Bombay High Court
Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd vs The Union Of India on 6 November, 2023
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
PPN 11, 16, 18, 33 to 37 -wpl.13862.23& ors..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13862 OF 2023
Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India,
through the Secretary & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.38499 OF 2022
Kiran Nagindas Vora ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India,
through the Secretary & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2142 OF 2023
Mukesh N. Vora,
through Vipul Lakhani ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India,
through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue ...Respondents
ALONG WITH CONNECTED MATTER
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.37645 OF 2022
NIP Exports Pvt Ltd ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India,
through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue ...Respondents
1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2023 04:16:52 :::
PPN 11, 16, 18, 33 to 37 -wpl.13862.23& ors..doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.27997 OF 2023
Kiran Nagindas Vora ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India,
through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.28450 OF 2023
Mukesh Nagindas Vora ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.28762 OF 2023
Mukesh Nagindas Vora ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.28836 OF 2023
Mukesh Nagindas Vora ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.29147 OF 2023
Mukesh Nagindas Vora ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India ...Respondents
2 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2023 04:16:52 :::
PPN 11, 16, 18, 33 to 37 -wpl.13862.23& ors..doc
********
Mr. Prathamesh Gargate i/by M/s. UBR Legal Advocates for the
Petitioner in WP/L/38499/2022, 2142/2023, 37645/22, 27997/2023,
28450/2023, 28762/2023, 28836/2023 & 29147/2023.
Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for the Respondents in all
the matters.
Mr.Karan Adik a/w Mr.Saket R. Ketkar for Respondent No.2 in
WPL/38499/2022.
Mr.M.P. Sharma a/w Mr.Saket Ketkar for Respondents in
WPL/2142/2023 & 37864/2023.
Mr.Saket Ketkar for Respondents in WPL/27997/2023, 28450/2023,
28762/2023, 28836/2023 & 29147/2023.
********
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI,
JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.
DATE : 6th NOVEMBER, 2023.
P.C.
. This batch of petitions are moved on behalf of the petitioners
pointing out that these proceedings would stand covered by the decision
of the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of
Customs AIR 2021 SC 1699.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, who would
bring to our notice an order dated 6 June 2023 passed by a coordinate
Bench of the Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and
Another and the subsequent orders passed in the proceedings of Viral
Kanubhai Mehta Vs. The Union of India and Others. dated 26 June 2023
in Writ Petition No. 1570 of 2023, and order dated 11 July 2023 on a
batch of petitions (Irfan Hajiosman Nursumar & other petitioners vs.
3 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2023 04:16:52 :::
PPN 11, 16, 18, 33 to 37 -wpl.13862.23& ors..doc
Union of India & Ors) in Writ Petition No. 7473 of 2023 & other
connected matters, to contend that all these petitions raised issues arising
from the decision of the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra)
to submit that the Court has admitted these petitions.
3. We may note, the first order passed on the proceedings of Idea
Cellular Ltd. Vs. The Union of India, whereby this Court has noted that
there is a Review Petition arising out of the decision of the Supreme Court
in M/s Canon India Private Limited, which is pending before the
Supreme Court. Also subsequent the amendment which was brought
about by Finance Act 2022, is also challenged before the Supreme Court
in the proceedings of Writ Petitions which too are pending.
4. In this view of the matter, we passed the following order in Idea
Cellular Ltd. Vs. Union of India.
""1. Heard Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
issues as raised in the present petition and subject matter of the
impugned order would stand covered by the decision of the
Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of
Customs1 . He has also drawn our attention to an order dated 6
June, 2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Idea
Cellular Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Anr. and other Petitions ,
to which one of us (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) was a member, in which
considering similar issues, the Court made observations in regard
to the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court while
admitting the petitions and continuing the ad-interim order which
was passed in the said petitions. The said order reads thus:
"1. Common issues of law are involved in the
present proceedings as observed in the order passed by
4 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2023 04:16:52 :::
PPN 11, 16, 18, 33 to 37 -wpl.13862.23& ors..doc
the co-ordinate bench of this Court on the earlier
occasion. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the impugned orders passed by the
respondent-revenue are contrary to the principles of
law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
M/s. Canon India Private Limited Versus
Commissioner of Customs2 Learned counsel for the
parties would inform that there is a petition filed before
the Supreme Court praying for review of the decision
in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Also there are subsequent
events namely that by an order dated 2 May 2022 an
amendment has been made by Finance Act 2022 in
which it is alleged to overcome the effect of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt.
Ltd. (supra). It is informed by Mr. Nankani, learned
senior counsel for the petitioners that the said
amendment is also subject matter of challenge in writ
petition(s) filed before the Supreme Court which are
stated to be pending before the Supreme Court. In this
context, Mr. Nankani has drawn our attention to an
order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No(s). 6142 of 2019 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Aspam
Petrochem Pvt. Ltd.) dated 26 July, 2022 which is an
order on batch of civil appeals as also writ petitions
filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in
which the 2022 amendment is stated to be subject
matter of challenge. The Supreme Court having noted
the order passed in Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 in
the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Canon
India Pvt. Ltd. dated 19 May, 2022, has adjourned the
said proceedings awaiting the decision of the review
petition.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion,
the present petitions would be required to be
adjudicated finally as agreed by the learned counsel for
the parties. Hence Rule. Respondents waive service.
3. Interim order passed earlier shall continue to
operate till the final decision of the petitions.
4. Liberty to the parties to move the Court after
the proceedings are decided by the Supreme Court.
5. In the meantime, the parties are directed to
complete the pleadings on the petitions."
3. In our opinion, as the principal issue is subjudice before the
Supreme Court as noted in the order dated 6 June, 2023 passed in
Idea Cellular Ltd. (supra), we are of the opinion that this petition also
needs to be admitted. Hence, Rule. Respondent waives service.
5 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2023 04:16:52 :::
PPN 11, 16, 18, 33 to 37 -wpl.13862.23& ors..doc
4. As and by way of ad-interim relief, we stay the
impugned order, however, liberty to the respondents to make
an application for vacating the said order in the event the
respondents are of the opinion that the same ought not to be
continued and/or after the decision of the Supreme Court in
the pending Review/Writ Petition in the case of Canon India
Pvt. Ltd. (supra)."
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the issues are not different from what the Court considered in
the case of Idea Cellular Ltd., Viral Kanubhai Mehta and in the
case of Irfan Hajiosman Nursumar. We accordingly pass similar
orders on the present proceedings. Hence, Rule. Respondents waive
service.
6. As and by way of ad-interim relief, we stay the impugned
order, however, liberty to the respondents to make an application
for vacating of the said order in the event the respondents are of the
opinion that the same ought not to be continued and/or after the
decision of the Supreme Court in the pending Review/Writ
Petition in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).
7. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
JITENDRA JAIN, J. G. S. KULKARNI, J.
6 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2023 04:16:52 :::