Case: Harivansh Lal Mehra Vs. State of Maharashtra

of an offence under that Act. According to him, the investigation of his case was illegal as the required sanction had not been obtained. But the most important plea taken by him is that no custom duty was leviable on the articles and to have been sent by the appellant from Goa to Bombay and as such the entire fabric of the prosecution case must fall to the ground. There is force in this contention. Hence it is not necessary to the other contentions.4. As mentioned earlier Goa was liberated on December 20. 1961. Twelfth amendment to our Constitution which received the assent of the President on 27th March, 1962 made Goa a part of India It became a Union Territory. The amendment in question is deemed to have come into force on December 20. 1961. Hence Goa must be considered as a part of India from December 20. 1961 and indisputably at any rate from March 27, 1962. Article 1 of our Constitution says:"1. India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.2. The States and the territories First Schedule.3. The territory of India shall comprise(a) the territories of the States;(b) the Union territory specified the First Schedule; and(c) such territories may be acquired".5. All the territories that this country may acquire in whatever manner become part of India in view of Article 1 (3) {c). Further in the case of Goa by means of 12th amendment to the Constitution, the same is included in the 1st Schedule. There fore there is no room for the contention that Goa was not a part of India during the relevant time. It may be noted that according to the prosecution the `goods complained of were all sent from Goa to Bombay after March 27, 1962.6. This takes us to the question whether there was any liability to pay customs duty when someone sent from Goa to Bombay in 1962. No statute or statutory rule was placed before the Court to show that any customs duty had been imposed on the goods transmitted from Goa to other parts of India after December 20, 1961. The only witness who spoke about the liability to pay customs duties on the goods in question is P. W. 56 Shaikh the Dy. Superintendent of Central Excise. According to him customs duty on those articles was leviable because of certain administrative instructions. But he refused to place those administrative instructions before the Court. He claimed privilege on the ground that they are confidential documents a strange claim. Stranger still is that the trial Court appears to have accepted that plea. No tax or duty can be levied or collected except by authority of law. Hence no customs duty was leviable on the basis of any administrative instruction. Every levy of customs duty or any other tax must be sanctioned by law. It is surprising that both the trial Court as well as the High Court were of the opinion that certain customs duties were leviable because of some administrative instructions. It appears that there was a notification issued in the year 1950 declaring Goa, to be a foreign territory and thus bringing the exports from that country to India within the purview of Land Customs Act. But that notification cannot continue to have a legal effect after Goa became a part of India. On becoming a part of India Goa ceased to be a foreign territory. The notification in question must have been issued under Section 5 of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 as it stood in 1950 (that section has been repealed now). That section read:"Where a customs duty at any rate prescribed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force is leviable on any articles when imported into, or any article when exported from, a port in India the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, direct that a duty of customs at the like rate shall be leviable on any such article when imported or exported, as the case may be, by land from or to any territory outside India which it may. by a like notification, declare to be foreign territory for the purposes of this section ".7. The notification under this section could have been issued only in respect of any territory outside India and not in respect of any part of India. That provision empowered the Government to declare any territory outside India as a foreign territory for the purposes of that provision. That provision did not empower the Government to declare any part of India as a foreign territory. But it gave power to the Central Government not to treat any territory outside India as a foreign territory for the purposes of that provision. To illustrate the position, the Central Government could not have declared either Delhi or Bombay as a foreign territory, but it could have treated Nepal or Bhutan as not a foreign territory for the purposes of that provision. Once Goa became part of India, the Government was incompetent to declare that territory as a foreign territory. Nor does it appear that any such declaration was made after December 20, 1961.8. Unfortunately the High Court allowed itself to be influenced by what it says the practical considerations. It is likely that there were considerable foreign goods in Goa which had been imported into that territory before it was liberated, may be even without paying customs duty and those goods were available for being transmitted to other parts of India. But this circumstance does not change the position In law, It is not necessary for us to consider whether after integration of Goa, the Government could have imposed any duty on the goods that were sent from Goa to other parts of India. Suffice it to say that our attention was not invited to any law imposing such duties. That being so, the conclusion that the appellant had utilised his official position to evade customs duty must fail.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]But it is not necessary to go into that evidence as in our opinion the charge under which the appellant was convicted is without any legalis force in this contention. Hence it is not necessary to the otherfore there is no room for the contention that Goa was not a part of India during the relevant time. It may be noted that according to the prosecution the `goods complained of were all sent from Goa to Bombay after March 27,statute or statutory rule was placed before the Court to show that any customs duty had been imposed on the goods transmitted from Goa to other parts of India after December 20, 1961. The only witness who spoke about the liability to pay customs duties on the goods in question is P. W. 56 Shaikh the Dy. Superintendent of Central Excise. According to him customs duty on those articles was leviable because of certain administrative instructions. But he refused to place those administrative instructions before the Court. He claimed privilege on the ground that they are confidential documents a strange claim. Stranger still is that the trial Court appears to have accepted that plea. No tax or duty can be levied or collected except by authority of law. Hence no customs duty was leviable on the basis of any administrative instruction. Every levy of customs duty or any other tax must be sanctioned by law. It is surprising that both the trial Court as well as the High Court were of the opinion that certain customs duties were leviable because of some administrative instructions. It appears that there was a notification issued in the year 1950 declaring Goa, to be a foreign territory and thus bringing the exports from that country to India within the purview of Land Customs Act. But that notification cannot continue to have a legal effect after Goa became a part of India. On becoming a part of India Goa ceased to be a foreign territory. The notification in question must have been issued under Section 5 of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 as it stood in 1950 (that section has been repealed now).The notification under this section could have been issued only in respect of any territory outside India and not in respect of any part of India. That provision empowered the Government to declare any territory outside India as a foreign territory for the purposes of that provision. That provision did not empower the Government to declare any part of India as a foreign territory. But it gave power to the Central Government not to treat any territory outside India as a foreign territory for the purposes of that provision. To illustrate the position, the Central Government could not have declared either Delhi or Bombay as a foreign territory, but it could have treated Nepal or Bhutan as not a foreign territory for the purposes of that provision. Once Goa became part of India, the Government was incompetent to declare that territory as a foreign territory. Nor does it appear that any such declaration was made after December 20, 1961.8. Unfortunately the High Court allowed itself to be influenced by what it says the practical considerations. It is likely that there were considerable foreign goods in Goa which had been imported into that territory before it was liberated, may be even without paying customs duty and those goods were available for being transmitted to other parts of India. But this circumstance does not change the position In law, It is not necessary for us to consider whether after integration of Goa, the Government could have imposed any duty on the goods that were sent from Goa to other parts of India. Suffice it to say that our attention was not invited to any law imposing such duties. That being so, the conclusion that the appellant had utilised his official position to evade customs duty must fail.