1938 (8) TMI 23 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses suit for lack of jurisdiction under Government of India Acts, upholding Chief Customs Authority's decisions.

The High Court dismissed the suit, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Government of India Acts. The court upheld the finality of decisions by the Chief ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the suit.2. Finality and binding nature of the decision by the Chief Customs Authority as modified by the Governor-General in Council.3. Legality of the orders for confiscation and penalties imposed under the Sea Customs Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High CourtThe primary issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit concerning the revenue or the collection thereof. The court examined the historical context, beginning with the Supreme Court's claimed jurisdiction over acts done by the East India Company in collecting revenues. The court referred to 21 Geo. 3, Cap 70, which prevented the Supreme Court from interfering in revenue matters. Similar limitations were imposed on the High Courts by Section 106(2) of the Government of India Act, 1915, and Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Both sections essentially state that no High Court shall have original jurisdiction in any matter concerning the revenue or acts done in the collection thereof.The court cited precedents, including Govindarajulu Naidu v. Secy. of State, where it was held that Section 106(2) barred the suit on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. The court agreed with the reasoning that the seizure and confiscation of goods by Customs Authorities were acts done in the collection of revenue, thus falling under the jurisdictional bar.The court also referenced Best and Co. Ltd v. Collector of Madras, where it was held that Section 106(2) barred the High Court from entertaining suits concerning revenue matters. The court concluded that no irregularity or error in the conclusions arrived at could exclude the application of the Government of India Act, thus holding that the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the Original Side of the High Court.Issue 2: Finality and Binding Nature of the DecisionThe second issue was whether the decision of the Chief Customs Authority, as modified by the Governor-General in Council, was final and binding upon the plaintiff and not liable to be challenged in any suit. The court emphasized the principle that when a statute creates a duty or imposes a liability and prescribes a specific remedy, no other remedy can be pursued. The Sea Customs Act provided an appeal to the Chief Customs Authority under Section 188, and the finality of such orders was reinforced by the concluding words of the section, stating that every order passed in appeal shall be final, subject to the power of revision by the Governor-General in Council under Section 191.The court referred to the decision of Gentle J. of the Madras High Court, agreeing that the sole remedy for those aggrieved by a decision under the Sea Customs Act was the statutory appeal provided. The court noted that the plaintiff's representations were carefully considered at every stage, and there was no evidence of improper or unjudicial conduct by the authorities.Issue 3: Legality of the Orders for Confiscation and PenaltiesThe plaintiff challenged the legality of the orders for confiscation and penalties, arguing that no offence under Sections 167(37) or (38) of the Sea Customs Act had been committed, and the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with natural justice. The court noted that the Governor-General in Council had modified the Collector's decision by setting aside the penalty but upheld the order for confiscation under Section 167(36), which deals with the removal of goods with the intention of defrauding the revenue.The court found that the plaintiff's grievance regarding being charged under Section 167(36) was illusory, as the record showed that the plaintiff had submitted a memorial to the Finance Department, acknowledging that the facts, if established, would constitute an offence under Section 167(36). The court held that the Governor-General in Council's order was in line with the plaintiff's own submissions and thus dismissed the complaint.Conclusion:The court dismissed the suit with costs, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit due to the statutory bar under Sections 106(2) and 226(1) of the Government of India Acts. The court also upheld the finality of the decisions made by the Chief Customs Authority and the Governor-General in Council, emphasizing that the specific statutory remedies provided must be pursued exclusively.