Order preventing Customs from rejecting time-barred refund claims unlawful; Section 27 controls; Article 226/227 can't delegate judicial powers

The SC held that High Court direction preventing Customs from rejecting refund applications as time-barred was unlawful because authorities under the Customs Act cannot be directed to act contrary to Section 27; Article 226/227 powers cannot be used to confer or delegate judicial powers to statutory authorities. The impugned order's clause was set aside, the appeal allowed, and the matter remitted to the HC to dispose of the writ petition according to law.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of the direction given by the High Court regarding rejection of refund application on the ground of being time-barred.

Analysis:
The appeal in question challenged the validity of a direction by the Bombay High Court regarding the rejection of a refund application on the grounds of being time-barred. The respondent had imported goods between 1983 and 1985, leading to a dispute with Customs Authorities over duty classification. The respondent filed a refund application, which the appellant contested. The High Court directed the Customs Authorities not to reject the refund application as time-barred and to decide on its merits. The main issue was whether this direction was legally valid.

The Supreme Court referred to a previous case where it was established that claims for refund must adhere to the statutory limitations provided by the Customs Act. The Court highlighted the importance of following the provisions of the Act, especially regarding time limitations for refund claims. The Court emphasized that the Customs Authorities are bound by the Act's provisions and cannot be directed to act contrary to them, even under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power of the High Court does not extend to directing authorities to act against the law, particularly in matters related to Customs regulations.

The Court examined Section 27 of the Customs Act, which outlines the procedure for refund claims. The section, both before and after amendment, specifies the time frame within which refund applications must be filed. The Court rejected the argument that the time limitations prescribed by Section 27 do not apply to suits or writ petitions, emphasizing that all claims for refund must comply with the statutory provisions, including time limitations. The Court concluded that the direction given by the High Court in the impugned order was unsustainable in law.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it was not expressing an opinion on the maintainability or merits of the writ petition, leaving those considerations to the High Court. The decision emphasized the importance of upholding statutory provisions and ensuring that authorities act in accordance with the law, particularly in matters concerning Customs regulations.

---