IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 20450 OF 2007 Dated : February 4, 2008 Between: Kakatiya University, Vidyaranyapuri, Warangal, Rep. By its Registrar Petitioner AND The Government of India, Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, Technology Bhavan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi and others Respondents THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 20450 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring action of the respondents in issuing the demand notice to pay tax of Rs.5,00,000/- on equipment under proceedings dated 26.7.2007 in respect of UV-Vis Spectrometer imported by the petitioner and detention of the said equipment under panchanama dated 26.7.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner – University, which is created under an Act of State Assembly, received information from M/s. Jayem Impex Private Limited on 22.10.2001 about the arrival of shipment from Singapore, the petitioner collected all the papers from State Bank of Hyderabad, Regional Engineering College Branch and the Customs Department had given certificate for its delivery and the consignment was released from the godown and the Air Cargo Terminal Complex has permitted to take the shipment on 31.1.2001. It is further stated that the Deputy Commissioner advised the petitioner to obtain DSIR certificate issued by the Department of Science and Technology for importing the equipment in future, which the petitioner obtained on 25.7.2002. Thereafter, a notice dated 11.9.2002 was issued by the Customs Department calling upon the petitioner University to pay a sum of Rs.2,29,054/-. The petitioner submitted reply bringing to the notice of the respondents that it is registered by DSIR, which empowers the Registrars of Universities to issue essentiality certificate for equipment. The petitioner also wrote letter, dated 28.12.2004 for clearance of the consignment. Thereafter the Vice Chancellor of the petitioner University also wrote letters to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad. While so, the Officers of the Central Excise, Subedari, Hanamkonda, visited the petitioner University on 26.7.2007 and conducted panchanama detaining the UV-Vis Spectrometer, with instructions to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within one month, else the said instrument would be auctioned. Hence, the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Petitioner University is a body corporate as per Sec. 3 of the A.P. Universities Act and is a creature of the said Statute and when once the certificate of Importer – Exporter was issued by the Ministry of Customs dated 5.8.1998, the Department does not have the right to claim such huge tax for the equipment. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner University has obtained all the relevant and necessary certificates, but, however, they could not be produced earlier, as they were not available at that time. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that against the order impugned in this writ petition, an appeal is provided under Sec. 128 of the Customs Act and the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Having regard to the fact that an appeal is provided under Sec. 128 of the Customs Act and also in view of the submission that all the relevant documents have been obtained by the petitioner University, without adverting to the merits or otherwise of the matter, suffice it to direct the petitioner – University to file an appeal before the appellate Authority with all the relevant material papers. In the event of the petitioner filing an appeal, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________ G.ROHINI, J. February 4, 2008 MAS