2016 (12) TMI 102 - HC - Service Tax

Refund claim - reliance placed on the decision of its own case eBIZ. COM Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Ors. 2016 (9) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT decided on 1.9.2016 where the Court had directed repayment/refund of ₹ 17 Crores to it by the respondents - The respondents urge that the operation of the judgment of this Court has been suspended by the Supreme Court in an appeal by special leave (SLP (C) No.28325/2016) on 27.09.2016; a copy of the said order is placed on the record. A plain reading of the order shows that the Court issued notice to show cause to the respondent, i.e., the petitioner in this case and also directed the stay of operation of the judgment of this Court dated 1.9.2016. It is submitted that the Court in that judgment had recorded findings that the detention of its Managing Director was illegal and consequently the amounts deposited were extracted under coercion. The Court upheld the contention that the detention was illegal and by way of a consequential order directed refund of the amounts - this Court cannot grant the reliefs sought. In case, the petitioner wishes any relief, it is open to it to take appropriate steps available in law including moving a suitable application before the Supreme Court. Writ petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of amounts deposited by the petitioner based on a previous judgment.
2. Suspension of the operation of the judgment by the Supreme Court.
3. Legal detention of the Managing Director and the consequent refund of amounts.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought directions for the refund of amounts deposited by relying on a previous judgment of the High Court in the case of Ebiz.Com (i) Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, where a refund of ?17 Crores was directed to be made by the respondents. However, the respondents argued that the operation of the High Court judgment had been suspended by the Supreme Court in an appeal by special leave. The Supreme Court issued a notice to show cause to the petitioner and stayed the operation of the High Court judgment dated 1.9.2016. The High Court noted that the detention of the Managing Director was found to be illegal in the previous judgment, leading to the direction for the refund of the deposited amounts.

2. Due to the suspension of the High Court judgment by the Supreme Court, the High Court held that it could not grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that if the petitioner desired any relief, it was advised to pursue appropriate legal steps, including filing a suitable application before the Supreme Court. Therefore, in light of the suspension of the judgment by the higher court, the High Court disposed of the writ petition along with any pending applications.

3. The High Court's decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the Supreme Court had intervened by suspending the operation of the judgment directing the refund of amounts deposited by the petitioner. The legal aspect of the detention of the Managing Director was crucial in the context of the refund order, as the High Court had found the detention to be illegal, leading to the direction for the refund. However, with the Supreme Court's intervention and suspension of the High Court's judgment, the High Court concluded that it could not provide the reliefs sought by the petitioner and advised them to seek redressal through appropriate channels, including approaching the Supreme Court for further legal recourse.