1962 (4) TMI 89 - SC - Customs

High Court lacks jurisdiction over Collector of Customs post-appellate order. Order set aside, writ petition dismissed.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA Versus EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA Versus EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. - 1963 AIR 1124, 1963 (2) Suppl. SCR 563 Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ against the Collector of Customs when the appellate authority is beyond its territorial jurisdiction.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Issue a Writ Against the Central Board of Revenue:The Full-Bench of the High Court addressed whether any writ could be issued against the Central Board of Revenue, which was located outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. Citing the decision in Election Commission India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao (1953 S.C.R. 1144), the Full-Bench held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Issue a Writ Against the Collector of Customs:The second issue was whether the High Court could issue a writ against the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, whose order was the original order under challenge, despite the fact that the appeal against this order was dismissed by the Central Board of Revenue, which was beyond the High Court's jurisdiction. The Full-Bench held that since the Central Board of Revenue merely dismissed the appeal without modification, the operative order was that of the Collector of Customs, who was within the High Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court had jurisdiction to pass an order against the Collector of Customs.However, this judgment was contested in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the order of the original authority (Collector of Customs) merges into the order of the appellate authority (Central Board of Revenue) when the appeal is dismissed without modification. The Court noted that the appellate authority's decision, whether it reverses, modifies, or confirms the original order, is the operative decision in law. This principle was supported by previous decisions, including A. Thangal Kunju Mudaliar v. M. Venkita-chalam Potti (1955 2 S.C.R. 1196), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs. Amritlal Bhogilal and Company (1959 S.C.R. 713), and Madan Gopal Rungta v. Secretary to the Government of Orissa (1962 (Supp.) 3 S.C.R. 966).The Supreme Court emphasized that the order of the original authority merges into the order of the appellate authority once the appeal is disposed of. Consequently, if the appellate authority is beyond the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, the High Court cannot issue a writ to the original authority. This principle was reaffirmed, and the Court found that the High Court could not issue a writ to the Collector of Customs since it could not issue a writ to the Central Board of Revenue.The Supreme Court also addressed the respondent's reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohmmed Nooh (1958 S.C.R. 595), distinguishing it as a special case based on its unique facts. The Court reiterated that the principle of merger applies to departmental tribunals as well, and the original order does not gain greater efficacy by the subsequent dismissal of the appeal or revision.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ to the Collector of Customs once the appellate authority's order was beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.