Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RAMESH ENTERPRISES ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
COFFEE BOARD
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1990
BENCH:
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
BENCH:
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
SAWANT, P.B.
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1991 AIR 403 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 495
1991 SCC Supl. (2) 441 JT 1990 (4) 723
1990 SCALE (2)1245
ACT:
Coffee Act, 1942/Coffee Rules, 1955: Auction sale--Terms
and conditions--Clause 10-increase or reduction in duty
within 45 days from date of auction--Equally shared by
purchasers and Coffee Board--Date of auction----Whether
includible within the 45 days.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants, exporters under the provisions of the
Coffee Act, 1942 and Coffee Rules, 1955 used to participate
in the auction conducted by Respondent Board and purchase
coffee for export. The terms and conditions of the auction
sale are fixed by the Board. In respect of an auction held
on 18.5.1977, some dispute arose on the interpretation of
clause 10 of the terms and conditions. As per this clause,
any increase or reduction in duty effected within 45 days
from the date of the auction inclusive of that date was to
be shared equally between the Respondent Board and the
auction purchasers, with a view to fixing the reserve price
below which the specific lot of coffee was not to be sold at
the auction.
When the auction was held on 18.5.1977, the Respondent
Board took into consideration the duty which existed till
17.5.1977. However, on 18.5.1977, the date on which the
auction was held, there was a reduction in duty. thereafter,
the Respondent-Board sent a circular to all the registered
exporters demanding refund of the proportionate amount of
reduced duty as per clause 10 of the terms and conditions.
Accordingly, the exporters including the appellants refunded
50% of the reduction in the duty. After making the payment,
the appellants wrote to the Respondent-Board asking for the
return of the amount so paid on the ground that since there
was already a reduction in duty on the date of the auction,
it cannot be said that there was a reduction in duty within
45 days from the date of auction. The Respondent-Board
refused to refund the amount, as according to it, the reduc-
tion in duty was effected on 18.5.1977 by the authorities
and neither the Respondent-Board nor the purchasers were
aware of the same at the time of the auction, and that the
date of auction was includible within the period of 45 days
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
mentioned in clause 10.
496
The appellants filed Writ Petitions in the High Court
seeking direction to the Respondent-Board to repay the
amount paid by them. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by a
Single Judge on the ground of maintainability. He also held
that since 45 days were to be counted including the day of
auction, the Respondent-Board was entitled to proportionate
reduction in duty. The Division Bench confirmed the same.
Aggrieved. the appellants preferred appeals by special
leave.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. An increase or reduction in duty made on the
day of auction is also shareable between the parties. The
purpose of including the day of auction in the period of 45
days, contrary to the manner of computation of time in the
General Clauses Act, is obvious and is brought home more
prominently by the present instance itself. [501B-D]
2. Clause 10 of the Terms and Conditions categorically
states that any increase or reduction in taxes, duties etc.
within 45 days of the auction (inclusive of the day of the
auction) shall he shared between the auction purchasers and
the Respondent-Board. Neither the Board nor any of the
auction purchasers was aware of the reduction in export duty
for which a communication was issued on 18th May, 1977 the
date of auction itself. The board had fixed the reserve
price on the basis of the export-duty which was prevalent
till 17th May, 1977, the day prior to the date of auction.
The imposts keep on changing and none of the parties has a
control either over their variation or over the time of
theft variation. The dates of auction have necessarily to be
fixed in advance. It is to obviate the hardship or to grant
the necessary benefit, as the case may be, that purposely
the period of 45 days laid down in clause 10 is stipulated
to include the day of the auction as well. [500E-H; 501A]
JUDGMENT: