Article 226 and customs duty enforcement: inconsistent instructions cannot override statute, and suppression can bar writ relief.

Article 226 was treated as a procedural remedy, so a writ challenge remained available where a liability arising under pre-existing law was enforced after the Constitution came into force. In customs matters, departmental instructions had no force of law and could not override the statute; estoppel could not prevent recovery of duty lawfully due, and an additional demand was treated as correction of under-assessment. The petition also failed because material correspondence was withheld, and full and frank disclosure was required for prerogative relief. The challenge to the customs demand was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked in respect of a demand arising out of pre-Constitution facts when the demand was sought to be enforced after the Constitution came into force; (ii) whether the Customs authorities were bound by departmental instructions or precluded from making a further demand on the basis that the original assessment had already been made; and (iii) whether the petition was liable to be rejected for suppression of material facts and lack of candour.

Issue (i): whether Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked in respect of a demand arising out of pre-Constitution facts when the demand was sought to be enforced after the Constitution came into force

Analysis: Article 226 was treated as a procedural remedial provision and not as creating any substantive right. Where the asserted liability arose under an ordinary pre-existing law and the claim was sought to be enforced after the Constitution, the remedy under Article 226 was held to remain available. The mere fact that the underlying facts pre-dated the Constitution did not exclude the High Court's power to test the legality of the threatened enforcement.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-retrospectivity failed and Article 226 was held applicable.

Issue (ii): whether the Customs authorities were bound by departmental instructions or precluded from making a further demand on the basis that the original assessment had already been made

Analysis: The departmental instructions regarding forward exchange contracts were held to have no force of law and could not override the Sea Customs Act. The real value of imported goods had to be determined under the statute, and a concession inconsistent with the Act could be withdrawn. Estoppel could not operate against a statutory duty or prevent the recovery of duty lawfully due. The contention that the authorities were levying duty on unimported dollars was rejected as unreal, the demand being treated as a correction of under-assessment on imported goods.

Conclusion: The Customs authorities were held entitled to ignore the invalid instructions and demand the additional duty.

Issue (iii): whether the petition was liable to be rejected for suppression of material facts and lack of candour

Analysis: Material correspondence showing that representations had in fact been made and answered was not disclosed in the petition. In proceedings for prerogative relief, full and frank disclosure was treated as essential, and deliberate suppression of relevant facts justified refusal of relief. The omission was held to be serious and not merely technical.

Conclusion: The petition was held liable to be rejected for lack of candour and suppression of material facts.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the additional customs demand did not succeed, and the appellate court declined to interfere with the refusal of writ relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ remedy under Article 226 is available against post-Constitution enforcement of liabilities arising under pre-existing law, but statutory duties cannot be defeated by inconsistent administrative instructions or by estoppel, and prerogative relief may be refused where the applicant suppresses material facts.

---