A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. is a significant case heard by the High Court of Delhi on June 18, 2007. The case primarily focused on the imposition of excise duty on motor vehicles manufactured by A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. However, the case also involved aspects of the Indian Contract Act and the Companies Act. The attorneys present in the case were Mr. Ashok K. Anand, Mr. U.K. Bansal, and Mr. Alok Sharma for the petitioner, and Mr. R. Mohan, Mr. R.V. Sinha, and Mr. Sanjay Jain for the respondents.
A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. was a manufacturer of motor vehicles in India. In 1998, the Indian government had imposed an excise duty on motor vehicles, which was calculated based on the cost of production of the vehicles. A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi challenging the imposition of excise duty on motor vehicles manufactured by them.
The petitioner argued that the excise duty imposed on motor vehicles was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also contended that the excise duty was imposed without giving them a reasonable opportunity to be heard, in violation of principles of natural justice.
The Union of India argued that the imposition of excise duty on motor vehicles was a valid exercise of its power to tax and was necessary to generate revenue for the government.
In the case, the petitioner relied on the Indian Contract Act to argue that the imposition of excise duty on motor vehicles was a violation of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the government. The petitioner contended that the contract between the parties had been breached because the government had imposed a higher rate of excise duty on motor vehicles than on other goods.
The High Court of Delhi rejected this argument, stating that there was no specific contract between the parties that was breached. The Court held that the excise duty was imposed under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was not a breach of any contract between the parties.
The petitioner also relied on the Companies Act to argue that the imposition of excise duty on motor vehicles was a violation of their fundamental rights as a company. The petitioner contended that the imposition of excise duty on motor vehicles was preventing them from carrying out their business in a profitable manner and was thereby infringing upon their fundamental right to carry out a trade or business.
The High Court of Delhi rejected this argument as well, stating that the imposition of excise duty on motor vehicles was a valid exercise of the government’s power to tax. The Court held that the government had the right to impose taxes on businesses, including motor vehicle manufacturers, and that the imposition of excise duty on motor vehicles was not a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
The Court also examined the issue of discrimination in the imposition of excise duty on motor vehicles. The petitioner argued that the excise duty imposed on motor vehicles was discriminatory because it was higher than the excise duty imposed on other goods. The petitioner contended that this discrimination violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
The High Court of Delhi rejected this argument as well, stating that the excise duty was applied uniformly to all manufacturers of motor vehicles and was not targeted at any particular group of manufacturers. Therefore, the Court held that the imposition of excise duty on motor vehicles did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, the Court did hold that the manner in which the excise duty was calculated was arbitrary and violated principles of natural