Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. The Union Of India & Ors.

1. Mr. Rawal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants drew our attention to Section 25 of the Customs Act. He, in particular, relied upon sub-sections 4 and 5 thereof which reads as follows:

“(4) Every notification issued under sub-section (1) [or sub-section(2A)] shall,-

(a) unless otherwise provided, come into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette.

(b) Also be published and offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where a notification comes into force on a date later than the date of its issue, the same shall be published and offered for sale by the said Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations on a date on or before the date on which the said notification comes into force.”

2. His contention is that upon joint reading of clauses (a) and (b) of subsection 4 it would appear that the following steps are required before a notification can be said to have come into force.

(a) The Central Government has to issue the notification for publication in the Official Gazette.

(b) The notification has to be published in the Official Gazette. and,

(c) The gazette notification has to be offered for sale.

3. Unless these three steps are complied with, according to him, the notification cannot be said to have come into force.

4. In this case the gazette notification was published on 17th September, 2015 but the same was not, according to him, offered for sale to the public on 17 September, 2015. The gazette notification, according to him, was offered for sale only on 21st September, 2015. In support of his submission he relied on a letter dated 12 October, 2015 in response to his application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is at page 130 of the petition, which goes to show that the notification dated 17 September, 2015 was received on 21 September, 2015 at 3.30 p.m at Kitab Mahal, Sale Counter of the concerned department. He also relied on a letter dated 30 October, 2015 also in answer to an application made by the writ petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005 from which it appears that the printed gazette was dispatched from the Government of India Press, Mayapuri, New Delhi, for sale on 21 September, 2015. According to him, the documents appearing at pages 139 and 140 are in support of the contents of the letter dated 30 October, 2015. He added that the learned Trial Court by its order dated 21 January, 2016 directed as follows:

“A chance is afforded to the Union to produce the publication, if any, with evidence in support of the date of the publication of the relevant notification under clause (b) of Section 25(4) of the Act by the time the matter is taken up next a week hence.”

5. The Union of India in reply thereto used an affidavit affirmed on 28 January, 2016 and contented itself by disclosing a copy of a gazette notification to be published.

6. He, therefore, submitted the order dated 21 January, 2016 was not carried out. He concluded by saying that since unimpeachable evidence, according to him, is that the notification was offered for sale only on 21 September, 2015 the necessary conclusion has to be that the notification came into effect on 21 September, 2015.

7. He submitted that reference in this regard may also be made to sub-section 5 of section 25 which also speaks of the necessity of the notification being offered for sale before the same can become operative. According to him, the affidavit used by the Union of India referred to hereinabove did not disclose any evidence.

8. Mr. Rawal relied on a Judgement in the case of Param Industries Ltd. v. Union of India., reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T 3 (Karnataka).

9. He submitted that the Judgment in the case of Param Industries Ltd. was affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Param Industries Ltd., reported in 2015 (321) E.L.T 192 (S.C)