{"id":180087,"date":"2010-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-05T15:54:45","modified_gmt":"2016-07-05T10:24:45","slug":"hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: V.C. Daga, K. K. Tated<\/div>\n
                                          :1:\n\n    bgp\n                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION \n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                           WRIT PETITION NO.8906 OF 2009\n                                        WITH\n                         CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2933 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n                                          IN\n                           WRIT PETITION NO.8906 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    Mr.Biharilal Singhal,\n    carrying on business in the name & style of\n                              \n    Hi-Tech Corporation, as a sole a Proprietorship\n    thereof having their office at R-798, Hasti\n    Industrial Premises Co-op. Society Ltd.,\n    Opp. Business Millennium Park, T.T.C.,\n                             \n    Industrial Area, Village Mahape and Sawali,\n    Navi Mumbai - 400 709.                                      ..petitioner\n           \n\n    Versus\n        \n\n\n\n    1.       The Union of India\n             (Through the Secretary)\n             Ministry of Finance,\n             Department of Revenue,\n\n\n\n\n\n             North Block,\n             New Delhi - 110 001.\n\n    2.       The Chief Commissioner of Customs\n             Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House,\n\n\n\n\n\n             Nhava Sheva, Post : Uran,\n             Dist. Raigad,\n             Maharashtra - 400 707\n\n    3.       The Commissioner of Customs (Import),\n             Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House,\n             Nhava Sheva, Post : Uran,\n             Dist. Raigad,\n             Maharashtra - 400 707\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::\n                                                               :2:\n\n\n    4.        The Joint\/Deputy Commissioner of Customs\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                            \n              (CIU), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House,\n              Nhava Sheva, Post : Uran,\n              Dist. Raigad,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n              Maharashtra - 400 707                                                           ..Respondents\n\n\n    Mr.Prakash Shah i\/b. PDS Legal for the petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n    Mr.M.I.Sethna, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.B.Mishra for respondents.\n\n\n                                                                            CORAM :-     V.C.DAGA &\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                                                                                              K.K.TATED,JJ. \n                                             ig                                 DATE  :       6TH APRIL,2010\n    JUDGMENT (PER : V.C.DAGA,J.)\n<\/pre>\n
    1.        This   petition   filed   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of   India   is
\n    directed   against   the   communications   dated   29th  September,   2009   and   1st
\n    October,   2009   issued   by   the   Deputy   Commissioner   of   Customs,   CIU,   JNCH <\/p>\n
    (respondent NO.4) with further prayer to forthwith permit clearance of the
\n    goods covered by the Bills of Entry Nos.649199 dated 26 th  August, 2009 and <\/p>\n
    650812 dated 27th  August, 2009 by extending the benefit of Notification No.
\n    26\/2000-Cus dated 1st  March,2000 without any conditions.   Communication
\n    dated 29th September, 2009 calls upon the petitioner to submit bank guarantee <\/p>\n
    equivalent to the amount of Rs.88,30,137\/- for the aforesaid two bills of entry
\n    along with past 28 bills of entry finally assessed during the year 2009 with
\n    further   directions   to   the   petitioner   to   submit   bond   for   the   sum   of   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    15,75,33,199\/-   in   respect   of   CVD   for   the   past   28   bills   of   entry   and   basic
\n    customs   duty.       By   another   communication   dated   1st  October,   2009,   the
\n    petitioner  once again informed  that the  Commissioner  of Customs (Import)
\n    has accepted the petitioner’s request for provisional release of the consignment
\n    with the subject bills of entry referred to hereinabove, subject to the conditions
\n    reading as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  :3:<\/span><\/p>\n
            1)     On payment of differential amount of duty in respect of CVD of
\n            past imports amounting to Rs.69,22,982\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2)     On execution of Bond of the amount of Rs.8,83,01,366\/- being <\/p>\n
            assessable value for the above said two Bill of Entries and past 28 Bills
\n            of Entries filed during the current year i.e.2009.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3)     On furnishing and execution of Bank Guarantee equivalent to the <\/p>\n
            amount of Rs.88,30,137\/- in respect of BCD for the above said two Bill
\n            of Entries and for the past 28 Bill of Entries filed during the current year
\n            i.e.2009.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The   aforesaid   demand   by   respondent   No.4   is   the   subject   matter   of <\/p>\n
    challenge in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
    FACTUAL CONTEXT<\/p>\n
    2.      The   petitioner   is   proprietor   of   M\/s.Hi-Tech   Corporation   carrying   on
\n    business inter  alia;  as importers of  Printed   Thermal  Paper  Roll  (“PTPR” for
\n    short) having their office at Navi Mumbai.  The petitioner has been regularly <\/p>\n
    importing from Sri Lanka PTPR through Nhava Sheva Port and dealing in such
\n    imported PTPR in India.   According to the petitioner, he has filed more than <\/p>\n
    100 bills of entry seeking clearances of similar\/identical goods.   All the past
\n    consignments have been released as and by way of final assessment.\n<\/p>\n
    3.      The present dispute relates to PTPR imported by the petitioner from Sri
\n    Lanka covered under the bills of entry Nos.649199 dated 26th August, 2009
\n    and 650812 dated 27th August, 2009 detailed hereinbefore.   It appears that <\/p>\n
    after filing of the bills of entry referred to herein, the goods were withheld and
\n    were not released by respondent No.4 in spite of the requests made by the
\n    petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    4.      It appears that the summons dated 14th September, 2009 was issued to
\n    the   petitioner.     In   response   to   the   said   summons,   the   statements   of   the
\n    Manager of Petitioner was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   :4:<\/span><\/p>\n
    18th  September,   2009.     Thereafter,   the   petitioner   was   asked   to   deposit   an
\n    amount  equivalent  to   the   CVD on the  said  imported   PTPR.    The  petitioner <\/p>\n
    deposited Rs.2,47,540\/- and Rs.1,05,503\/- towards CVD payable on the said <\/p>\n
    imported goods under protest and without admitting the classification thereof.\n<\/p>\n
    5.      The   petitioner   vide   letter   dated   23rd  September,   2009,   informed <\/p>\n
    respondent   No.4   of   having   deposited   the   amount   with   the   Revenue   the
\n    equivalent to the amount of CVD.  It appears that thereafter vide letter dated
\n    24th  September, 2009, petitioner requested respondent No.2 to look into the
\n    matter and allow clearance of the imported consignments.  In response to the <\/p>\n
    said   request   of   the   petitioner,   respondent   No.4   vide   his   letter   dated   29th <\/p>\n
    September,   2009   called   upon   the   petitioner   to   submit   bank   guarantee
\n    equivalent to the amount of Rs.88,30,137\/- in respect of basic customs duty <\/p>\n
    for the said two bills of entry and for the past 28 bills of entry filed in the year
\n    2009   with   further   direction   to   submit   a   bond   for   the   amount   of   Rs.
\n    15,75,33,199\/- in respect of CVD for the past 28 bills of entry and BCD.\n<\/p>\n
    6.      The   petitioner,   vide   letter   dated   30th   September,   2009   informed <\/p>\n
    respondent No.4 that past 28 bills of entries have no connection whatsoever to
\n    the   present   consignments   and   in   any   case,   if   the   department   feels   that   in
\n    respect of the past bills of entry the petitioner is liable to pay duty on the <\/p>\n
    imported  consignments of PTPR, a proper show cause notice in that behalf
\n    may be issued to enable the petitioner to justify his stand.  By the said letter,
\n    the   petitioner   also   requested   respondent   No.4   to   allow   him   to   clear   the <\/p>\n
    imported consignments since he had already deposited the amount in respect
\n    of CVD and the goods detained were incurring heavy detention and demurrage
\n    charges.  Finally, vide letter dated 1st October, 2009, respondent No.4 informed
\n    the petitioner that respondent No.3 has accepted the petitioner’s request for
\n    provisional release of the consignments with the said bills of entry, subject to
\n    the conditions mentioned in para 1 hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      :5:<\/span><\/p>\n
    7.      The petitioner did not accept the above demands and has invoked writ
\n    jurisdiction of this Court to challenge their action and order.\n<\/p>\n
    RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:\n<\/p>\n
    8.      Mr.Shah,   learned   Counsel   for   the   petitioner   submits   that   the
\n    respondents have no power, authority and\/or jurisdiction to refuse to allow <\/p>\n
    clearances of the goods covered by the aforesaid bills of entry Nos.649199 and
\n    650812   dated   26th   August,   2009   and   27th   August,   2009   respectively.     He
\n    submits that the respondents are withholding the clearance of goods covered
\n    by the aforesaid two bills of entry until the petitioner makes payment of duty <\/p>\n
    and   give   security   for   the   consignment   which   were   already   assessed   and <\/p>\n
    allowed to be cleared is nothing but an act of twisting the arms of th petitioner
\n    to pressurize him to succumb to their pressure tactics.  This modus adopted by <\/p>\n
    Revenue, according to Mr.Shah is clearly not permissible in law.   He further
\n    submits that the petitioner has already deposited CVD under protest although
\n    not payable.   According to him, there is no justification in not allowing the <\/p>\n
    goods covered by two bills of entry referred to hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
    9.      Mr.Shah further submits that instead of issuing show cause notice in
\n    accordance   with   the   provisions   of   Section   27   of   the   Act,   respondents   are
\n    seeking to recover duty by not allowing the clearance of the goods covered by <\/p>\n
    two bills of entry referred to hereinabove only to compel petitioner to make
\n    payment of duty which is not due and payable.   He further submits that the
\n    action of the respondents in demanding duty allegedly short paid with bank <\/p>\n
    guarantee and bond in respect of basic customs duty in respect of two disputed
\n    bills   of   entry   clubbing   it   with   the   past   imports   is   clearly   bad   in   law   and
\n    untenable.\n<\/p>\n
    PER CONTRA:\n<\/p>\n
    10.     Mr.Sethna,   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   Revenue   submits   that   the
\n    provision   of   Section   18   of   the   Customs   Act   deals   with   the   provisional <\/p>\n
                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  :6:<\/span><\/p>\n
    assessment of duty leviable on goods pending production of documents when
\n    any further information is necessary for assessment of duty or the goods are <\/p>\n
    pending chemical or the other test for the purpose of determination of proper <\/p>\n
    duty.   In his submission, Section 28 of the Act empowers the competent officer
\n    to levy duty if the same has not been levied or has been short levied.   He
\n    submits that section 18 and 28 operate in different sphere i.e. when there is no <\/p>\n
    allegation of evasion of duty intentionally but there is bona fide dispute  in
\n    respect of quantum of levy of customs duty.  On the other hand, under Section
\n    111(m) of the Act, if the goods do not correspond in respect of value or any
\n    other particulars disclosed in the bills of entry under the Act, then such goods <\/p>\n
    are liable to be confiscated though the proper duty is to be quantified under <\/p>\n
    Section 28 of the Act.  He submits that the penalty for short levy or non levy of
\n    duty in terms of Section 114A includes penalty equal to the duty or interest.\n<\/p>\n
    He further submits that the imported goods are liable to be adjudicated by
\n    invoking Section 111 of the Customs Act, which may result into confiscation
\n    and redemption fine with further penalty under Section 112 of the Customs <\/p>\n
    Act.\n<\/p>\n
    11.      Mr.Sethna submits that to safeguard the Govt. revenue, the condition of
\n    execution of bond and bank guarantee with undertaking has been imposed.
\n    He further submits that provisional release of such goods is dealt with under <\/p>\n
    Section 110A of the Act and not under Section 18 of the Act.  Such provisional
\n    release of goods is  in respect of goods liable  to  be  confiscated, whereas  in
\n    respect of proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, the goods are not liable to <\/p>\n
    be   confiscated.     He,   thus,   submits   that   the   respondents   are   justified   in
\n    imposing conditions of execution of bank guarantee with undertaking for the
\n    purpose of safeguarding Govt. revenue.\n<\/p>\n
    12.      Mr.Sethna further submits that as per sub clause (4) of Section 17 of the
\n    Customs   Act,1962   which   states   that   notwithstanding   anything   contained   in
\n    this section, imported goods or export goods may, prior to the examination or <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   :7:<\/span><\/p>\n
    testing thereof, be permitted by the proper officer to be assessed to duty on the
\n    basis of the statements made in the entry relating thereto and the documents <\/p>\n
    produced and the information furnished under sub-section(3); but if it is found <\/p>\n
    subsequently  on examination  or   testing  of  the  goods or  otherwise   that  any
\n    statement in such entry or document or any information so furnished is not
\n    true   in   respect   of   any   matter   relevant   to   the   assessment,   the   goods   may, <\/p>\n
    without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, be
\n    reassessed to duty.  He, thus, submits that the goods imported under two bills
\n    of entry dated 26th and 27th August, 2009 were found mis-declared at the time
\n    of examination, the department is thus empowered to stop the consignment <\/p>\n
    for clearance for home consumption and investigate the matter.  He sought to <\/p>\n
    place strong reliance on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
\n    in the case of M\/s.Kundan Rice Mills Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. In Civil <\/p>\n
     Writ Petition No.13914 of 2008 decided on 15    December, 2008 (unreported)
\n                                                  th
\n                                                                                ,
\n    in support of his submission.\n<\/p>\n
    13.     On being asked as to how the action of the Revenue is justified with
\n    respect  to   the   demand   relating  to   the   past   28   imports  which   were   already <\/p>\n
    assessed and released pursuant to 28 bills of entry filed during the year 2009;
\n    Mr.Sethna   fairly   conceded   that   in   absence   of   show   cause   notice,   no   action
\n    could be justified.   Finding absence of show cause notice, he sought time to <\/p>\n
    issue show cause notice so as to legalise the impugned action.   The request
\n    made in this behalf did not appeal to our judicial mind, in view of the fact that
\n    this petition is pending in this Court since October, 2009,   no steps in that <\/p>\n
    direction were taken till date.     Prior to granting Rule vide order dated 7th
\n    December, 2009, this petition was heard by this Court on more than 3 to 4
\n    occasions.  Every time, this Court was told that the show cause notice is being
\n    issued.  However, in spite of lapse of more than 3\u00bd   months after admission of
\n    the petition, no steps were taken by the Revenue to issue show cause notice.
\n    Two consignments referred to hereinabove under the bills of entry dated 26th
\n    and   27th  August,   2009   are   lying   with   the   Customs,   from   the   date   of <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    :8:<\/span><\/p>\n
    communication of the order dated 1st October, 2009, and more than six months
\n    have   passed   thereafter.    Consignment  is suffering   detention  and   demurrage <\/p>\n
    charges.    This inaction on the part of the Revenue cannot be allowed to yield <\/p>\n
    further premium.   The request made is not bona fide.   Thus, the request of
\n    Mr.Sethna in this behalf did not find favour with this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    CONSIDERATION\n<\/p>\n
    14.     With the aforesaid rival contentions and the factual sketch drawn, we
\n    are called upon to decide the validity of two impugned communications dated
\n    29th September, 2009 and 1st October, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
    15.<\/p>\n
            The   petitioner   has   no   objection   to   accept   conditions   put   in   the
\n    communication   dated   1st  October,   2009,   while   accepting   his   request   for <\/p>\n
    provisional release of the consignment referred covered under the bills of entry
\n    No.649199 and 650812 dated 26th and 27th August, 2009, however, he is not
\n    ready   to   accept   conditions   put   by   the   Revenue,   in   relation   to   the   past   28 <\/p>\n
    imports covered under the 28 bills of entry during the year 2009 and demand
\n    for   differential   payment   of   amount   of   duty   in   respect   of   those   imports.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.Sethna has fairly stated that in absence of show cause notice the demand
\n    with respect of past imports covered under 28 bills of entry assessed during the
\n    year 2009 can not be justified.  Even the judgment in Kundan Rice Mills Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
    (Supra)   on   which   reliance   is   placed   is   also   misplaced   in   the   fact   and
\n    circumstances  of   the   case   in   hand.   Under   these  circumstances,   the
\n    communication dated 1st  October, 2009 to that extent is liable to be quashed <\/p>\n
    and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    16.     We were also taken to the various provisions of the Act by Mr.Shah as
\n    well as Mr.Sethna in support of their respective submissions.   The Revenue
\n    cannot  demand  the  amount  of  duty in  respect  of  past  CVD  on the  imports
\n    covered   under   28   bills   of   entry   which   were   already   assessed   and   cleared
\n    during the year 2009, in the absence of any positive action by issuing show <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    :9:<\/span><\/p>\n
    cause notice to set up demand in this regard.  Needless to mention that once
\n    the show cause notice is issued the assessee\/noticee would get an opportunity <\/p>\n
    to put-forth his say.  Once, he has elected to file his say and objection is raised, <\/p>\n
    then the adjudicating authority is free to adjudicate upon rival contentions  in
\n    accordance with law by reasoned order following principles of natural justice.
\n    But   no   law   permits   the   Revenue   to   twist   the   arms   of   the   importer   in   the <\/p>\n
    manner   in   which   it   is   being   done   through   the   communication   dated   1st
\n    October, 2009.  The action of the Revenue to the extent of their duty demand
\n    in respect of CVD for the past import covered under 28 bills of entry during the
\n    year 2009 is clearly bad and illegal and unsustainable in law besides being in <\/p>\n
    breach of principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
    17.     We must remind the officers of the respondents that every holder of a <\/p>\n
    statutory   office   is   a   trustee   to   whom   statutory   powers   are   entrusted.     His
\n    highest duty is to follow mandate of the statute.  Therefore, every holder of a
\n    statutory office must discharge his duty without bias and ill will.   In modern <\/p>\n
    society, no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which
\n    is arbitrary.     Every State action or action of the statutory authority, in order <\/p>\n
    to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux
\n    of   Article   14   and   basic   to   the   rule   of   law   the   system   which   governs   us.
\n    Arbitrariness is the very negation of the rule of law.  Satisfaction of this basic <\/p>\n
    test in every State or statutory action is sine qua non to its validity and in this
\n    respect   the   statutory   authority   cannot   claim   comparison   with   a   private
\n    individual even in the field of exercising judicial or quasi judicial powers.\n<\/p>\n
    18.     Conferment of the statutory power together with the discretion which
\n    goes with it to enable proper exercise of the power is coupled with the duty to
\n    shun   arbitrariness   in   its   exercise   and   to   promote   the   object   for   which   the
\n    power is conferred, which undoubtedly is not for individual or private gain,
\n    whim or caprice of any individual.  All persons entrusted with any such power
\n    have   to   bear   in   mind   its   necessary   concomitant   which   alone   justifies <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   :10:<\/span><\/p>\n
    conferment of power under the rule of law.\n<\/p>\n
    19.     The question, whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately <\/p>\n
    to be answered on the facts and in the circumstances  of a given case.   An
\n    obvious   test   to   apply   is   to   see   whether   there   is   any   discernible   principle
\n    emerging   from   the   impugned   act   and   if   so,   does   it   satisfy   the   test   of <\/p>\n
    reasonableness.  Where a mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no
\n    impediment in following that procedure, performance of the act otherwise and
\n    in   a   manner   which   does   not   disclose   any   discernible   principle   which   is
\n    reasonable, may itself attract the vice of arbitrariness.   Every statutory order <\/p>\n
    must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uniformed by reason, is <\/p>\n
    arbitrary.   Rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour,
\n    whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the <\/p>\n
    time being.  It is trite that ‘be you ever so high, the laws are above you’.   (Sew
\n    Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1991) 1 SCC
\n    212 )<\/p>\n
    20.     Having said so, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order to <\/p>\n
    the extent it makes demand of the differential amount of duty in respect of
\n    CVD,   execution   of   bond   and   bank   guarantee   with   respect   to   past   imports
\n    covered under 28 bills of entry filed, assessed and acted upon by releasing <\/p>\n
    goods during the year  2009 and maintain the action and terms put by the
\n    respondents in acceptance of the petitioner’s prayer for provisional release of
\n    the consignments covered by bills of entry No. 649199 and 650812 dated 26th <\/p>\n
    27th  August,   2009.     We   may   clarify   that   this   order   shall   not   preclude   the
\n    Revenue if they decide to take action in respect of the past imports covered by
\n    28 bills of entry in accordance with law, if advised.\n<\/p>\n
    21.     In the result, the petition is partly allowed.   Rule is made absolute to
\n    that extent with costs quantified in the sum of Rs.25,000\/- (Rs.Twenty Five
\n    Thousand   Only)   to   be   paid   by   the   Revenue   to   the   petitioner   for   their <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            :11:<\/span><\/p>\n
    unjustifiable and arbitrary decision with respect to past imports covered by 28
\n    bills of entry during the year 2009, which respondents could not justify on any <\/p>\n
    count.\n<\/p>\n
    22.       In view of the above, no orders are necessary on the Civil Application
\n    No.2933 of 2009.  Hence, the same stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    (K.K.TATED,J.)                                                   (V.C.DAGA,J.)\n                   \n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                                   \n                                  \n         \n      \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:48:21 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010 Bench: V.C. Daga, K. K. Tated :1: bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8906 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2933 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8906 OF 2009 Mr.Biharilal Singhal, carrying on business […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180087","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-05T10:24:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-05T10:24:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2979,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-05T10:24:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-05T10:24:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-05T10:24:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010"},"wordCount":2979,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010","name":"Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-05T10:24:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hi-tech-corporation-vs-the-union-of-india-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hi-Tech Corporation vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180087","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180087"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180087\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180087"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180087"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180087"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}