INDIA MOTOR PARTS AND ACCESSORIES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR T.S. SANTHANAM Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these three writ petitions is the India Motor Parts Accessories Ltd., Madras, represented by its Director. The first respondent is the Collector of Customs, Madras, and the second respondent is the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras. The three writ petitions are connected and common questions arise for decision in them. Hence they were heard together. The prior circumstances necessary for the consideration of the matters in controversy are briefly the following:

(2.) THE prayer in Writ Petition No. 1017 of 1954 is for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Collector of Customs, dated 29th November, 1962, confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, dated 15th September, 1962. This petition was presented on 4th December, 1963 approximately a year after the appellate order of the Collector of Customs.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Sri Thiruvenkatachari appearing for the petitioner urged that the word "deemed" used in the second ruling will have the effect of making the later ruling retrospective. It would, therefore, follow by this retrospective application, that the earlier ruling itself had been superseded and therefore this would be a further argument to substantiate the contention that the earlier levy was illegal. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision, of the Supreme Court in Amar Singh and Ors. v. Custodian, Evacuee Properly, Punjab and Anr. : [1957]1SCR801 at 611, where at page 611 Jagannadhadas, J., who gave the decision of the Bench, has made a remark in regard to a provision in the Constitution: