Court dismisses petition for declaratory relief and ancillary reliefs, citing limited relief and lack of direct challenge.

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to declaratory relief or ancillary reliefs sought. The court emphasized that the previous judgment's limited relief did not extend to subsequent periods or notifications without a direct challenge. The arguments regarding double taxation and refund of customs duty were rejected based on the court's interpretation of relevant laws and instructions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay customs duty under various notifications.
2. Applicability of previous court judgment to the current case.
3. Validity of subsequent notifications imposing customs duty.
4. Double taxation concerns.
5. Entitlement to refund of customs duty paid.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Customs Duty Under Various Notifications:
The petitioners sought a declaration that they were not liable to pay customs duty under several notifications, including Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002, Notification No. 91/2010-Cus., dated 6-9-2010, Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012, and Notification No. 26/2012-Cus., dated 18-4-2012. They argued that these notifications were void ab initio based on a previous judgment dated 15-7-2015, which had declared certain notifications ultra vires.

2. Applicability of Previous Court Judgment to the Current Case:
The petitioners relied on a previous judgment in Special Civil Application No. 3142 of 2010, which had set aside the proviso to Notification No. 25/2010-Cus., dated 27-2-2010, as being ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. However, the court noted that the previous judgment granted limited relief for the period from 26-6-2009 to 15-9-2010 and did not extend to the other notifications or periods beyond this timeframe.

3. Validity of Subsequent Notifications Imposing Customs Duty:
The court observed that subsequent notifications, including Notification No. 91/2010-Cus., dated 6-9-2010, and others, were not challenged in the previous petition. The court emphasized that without a direct challenge to these notifications, it could not grant declaratory relief based on the previous judgment. The court also noted that the petitioners did not challenge Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. and Notification No. 26/2012-Cus. during the pendency of the earlier petition.

4. Double Taxation Concerns:
The petitioners argued that imposing customs duty on electricity removed from SEZ to DTA amounted to double taxation, as they were already paying duty on raw materials like coal. The court acknowledged this concern but noted that Instruction No. 67, dated 28th October 2010, had kept the operation of Rule 47(3) of the SEZ Rules in abeyance from 6-9-2010. Therefore, the petitioners were not liable to pay duty on raw materials and inputs post this date, mitigating the double taxation issue.

5. Entitlement to Refund of Customs Duty Paid:
The petitioners sought a refund of customs duty paid on electricity removed from SEZ to DTA. However, the court held that since the declaratory relief was not granted, the question of refund did not arise. The court also dismissed the challenge to the letters dated 8-10-2015 and 16-11-2015, which demanded payment of customs duty.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners were not entitled to the declaratory relief or ancillary reliefs sought. The court emphasized that the previous judgment's limited relief could not be extended to subsequent periods or notifications without a direct challenge. The petitioners' arguments regarding double taxation and refund of customs duty were also rejected based on the court's interpretation of the relevant laws and instructions.

---