2020 (1) TMI 1308 - HC - Customs

Refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner - HELD THAT - After passing of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 30-7-2010, the petitioner had submitted an application for refund on 12-1-2011 and thereafter, on 12-4-2018 after disposal of SLP. Therefore, the ground on which the application seeking refund has been rejected is factually incorrect. It is evident that the order that has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner is factually incorrect. The impugned order dated 21-8-2018 therefore cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The Assistant Commissioner (Refund), Customs, Goa, is hereby directed to decide the applications dated 12-1-2011 and 12-4-2018 by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Writ of mandamus to consider refund application
- Refusal of refund application post court orders
- Challenge to order in Writ Appeal
- Rejection of refund application by Assistant Commissioner

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application for refund of the amount deposited. The petitioner, a steel manufacturer, imported metallurgical coke and paid customs duty at different rates due to technology used, leading to a series of legal challenges and court orders.

2. The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the imposition of higher customs duty, which were disposed of with directions to consider refund applications. The respondents challenged these orders in a Writ Appeal, which was dismissed, and the Apex Court affirmed the decision. Subsequently, the petitioner filed refund applications post SLP disposal, rejected by the respondents.

3. The rejection was based on the claim that no application was filed post the court order in 2010, which was factually incorrect. The High Court found the rejection unjustified, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Assistant Commissioner to decide on the refund applications within two months of the order receipt.

4. The judgment highlights the importance of factual accuracy in administrative decisions, ensuring compliance with court orders, and the obligation of authorities to consider refund applications in accordance with the law. The legal process was meticulously followed, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to judicial directives.