COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD.
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the order of the original authority merges into the order of the appellate authority. After an appeal is disposed of, it is only the order of the appellate authority that is operative. Therefore, if the appellate authority is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, it is not open to the High Court to issue a writ to the original authority, which is within its jurisdiction, especially when it cannot issue a writ to the appellate authority. The Court distinguished the case of State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nook, stating it was a special case concerning the retrospective effect of constitutional provisions and not territorial jurisdiction. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition.
What were the facts?
The respondent imported 2,000 drums of mineral oil. The appellant, Collector of Customs, Calcutta, confiscated 50 drums and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 61,000 on the respondent under the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The respondent appealed to the Central Board of Revenue (CBR), which dismissed the appeal in April 1952. The respondent then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Calcutta High Court. A Full Bench of the High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to issue a writ against the CBR, which was located outside its jurisdiction. However, it held that it had jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, as the original authority, because the CBR had merely dismissed the appeal. The appellant obtained a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ against the original authority (Collector of Customs, Calcutta) when the appellate authority (Central Board of Revenue) is located outside its territorial jurisdiction and has merely dismissed the appeal. Assessee's Arguments: The respondent argued that since the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) had merely dismissed the appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, the original order remained operative. Therefore, the High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Collector of Customs, who was within its jurisdiction, even though the appellate authority was not. Revenue's Arguments: The appellant argued that the order of the original authority merges into the order of the appellate authority. Therefore, if the appellate authority is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, no writ can be issued against the original authority, even if the appeal was merely dismissed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 188, Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
.. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 563 tenure-holders or under-tenure-holders and raiyats. It is, thus, clear that the. rent payable by the appollants as· raiyats in respect of the disputed lands would form part of the assets which have to be included rn the gross assets in determining compensatio·n. But that does not mean .that the interests ·of raiynts also have become vested in the State as a result of the notification under s. 3, read with s.
For the reasons aforesaid, it must be held that the appellant's raiyati interests in the lands and in the buildings standing on those lands have not been affected by the abolition of his interest as proprietors, and .that the State authorities had illegally taken possession of those. The ~.ppeal is accordingly allowed with oosts here and below. A ppe.al allOwf.d . COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA v. EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. (B. P. SINHA, c. J ' P. B. QAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, and T. L. VANKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) . Bea CWJtoms-Effect of confirmation of order. in appeal- Order of Collector merged into that of Central Board of Revenue -Sea CWJtoms Act, 1878 (8 of 1878). · J.. The
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
