Greek and Latin - DDT's new feature

By Vijay Kumar

Something a judge says in arguing a point, but has no bearing on the final decision

“Obiter dictum is a judge’s expression of opinion uttered in discussing a point of law or in giving judgments, but not essential to the decision and so without binding authority, generally, an incidental remark.” – S.B. Sarkar’s “Words and Phrases of Excise Customs & Service Tax

In A.K. Roy and another v. Voltas Ltd., popularly known as the Voltas case in Excise circles, Justice K.K. Mathew made an obiter dictum that “Excise is a tax on the production and manufacture of goods”.

“Obiter dictum is an opinion on some point which is not necessary for the decision of the case. The emphasis is not only on the opinion, but also on the point. It is not merely an expression of opinion unconnected with the point that arises, but it must be an opinion given on a point which arises for determination. It would be incorrect to say that every opinion of the Supreme Court would be binding upon the High Courts in India. The only opinion which would be binding would be an opinion expressed on a question that arose for the determination of the Supreme Court, and when though ultimately it might be found that the particular question was not necessary for the decision of the case, even so, if an opinion was expressed by the Supreme Court on that question, then the opinion would be binding upon High Courts. In the case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, it is clear that no question ever arose before the Supreme Court, or could possibly arise, with regard to the interpretation of Section 167(8). The only order under Section 167(8) was an order of confiscation, and in deciding whether article 20(2) applied or not the question as to the power of the Customs authorities to impose the penalty under Section 167(8) was entirely irrelevant. Therefore, the observation of the Supreme Court that the penalty under Section 167(8) is limited to Rs. 1,000/- is not an obiter dictum in the sense indicated. It was not an expression of opinion on a point that arose before the Supreme Court. It is a casual observation made in considering the whole scheme of the Sea Customs Act” – Bombay High Court