Relevant Observations of the Hon'ble High Court (Para 79)

We must first express our dissatisfaction with the inadequacy of pleadings. The burden on the petitioners when they challenge the constitutionality and legality of a levy is enormous. That burden has to be discharged by producing requisite material.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in several decisions has held that in a petition challenging the constitutionality of a statute, allegations regarding the violation of constitutional provisions should be specific, clear and unambiguous, and should give relevant particulars. The burden is on the person who impeaches the law as violative of a Constitutional guarantee to show that the particular provision is infirm for all or any of the reasons stated by him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is always a presumption in favour of the Constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the Constitutional principles.

It must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It is permissible for the Court to take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and the Court may assume every set of facts that can be conceived to be existing at the time of legislation in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality (See: Gauri Shankar vs. Union of India,  (1994 (9) TMI 343 - SUPREME COURT) and R.K. Garg vs. Union of India. [1981 (11) TMI 57 - SUPREME Court])

Nowadays we have been noticing a growing tendency to file looselydrafted petitions without necessary pleadings, adequate or relevant particulars or proper grounds.

The importance of pleadings is lost simply because nowadays an insistence on proper pleadings is misconstrued as a Court being hyper-technical. What we look for and demand is not a slavish, mindless adherence to technicalities. We seek sufficiency of compliance with the law; and there is a sound, well-established rationale, one that is centuries old, for demanding that an assault on the constitutionality of an enactment is not lightly mounted, nor lightly entertained. The legal requirement is the jurisprudentially established presumption of constitutionality; to dislodge that presumption requires a very high standard. The material must be cogent, and it must be clear and unequivocal. After all, when a statute is attacked as unconstitutional, this is a frontal assault on legislative wisdom. If that wisdom is to be undermined by constant attacks based on feeble and flimsy grounds, then it is the rule of law that is threatened. Doctrines fundamental to our Constitutional framework also demand that vires challenges are not filed or entertained on slight causs.

In the present petition we do not know how many consignments of the goods were imported, from which destination or country abroad, when and whether that import is at a particular port, viz., Mumbai and how the goods found their way to the petitioners’ unit at Chembur, Mumbai.

In the absence of such pleadings, it is not possible for us to assume that the entire quantity of the raw material has been imported or to ascertain whether it is procured partially from abroad and partially from domestic sources. We are concerned with a real challenge and not an academic one. However, without dwelling on this aspect any further, but warning parties like the petitioners who are advised by competent set of advocates and legal advisors to hereafter be cautious and careful when they raise such challenge, we proceed to consider the submissions of Mr. Dada. We consider them because the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the entire quantity of low sulphur waxy residue has been procured by the petitioners, to be used as raw material, from abroad.

See:- The Tata Power Company Limited and Mr. Arun Bapat Versus State of Maharashtra and Others and Vica-Versa - 2016 (8) TMI 299 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT