2021 (7) TMI 913 - HC - Customs

Seeking refund of dual payment made - applicability of Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927 - allegation is that the expression used in the said section is, excess payment and, not dual payment - HELD THAT - There are no merits in the writ appeal warranting interference, for the reasons that the writ court has considered the statutory provisions, and has rightly come to the conclusion that Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927 cannot be made applicable to the case on hand, as the expression used in the said section is, excess payment and, not dual payment , made by the petitioner, on account of a technical flaw, in the web portal, in not accepting the online payment and thus, the writ petitioner was constrained to make a manual payment of ₹ 6,33,144/-. Now that, the amount is stated to have been deposited with the office of the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P., with a view to resolve the dispute and to avoid further litigation, a direction to the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P. is issued, to refund the sum of ₹ 6,33,144/- to M/s.Seahorse Ship Agencies Private Limited, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927 to a case involving dual payment.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs in granting refunds.
3. Classification of payment as excess payment or dual payment under the Lighthouse Act, 1927.
4. Compliance with the statutory period for refund claims under Section 19.
5. Authority responsible for refunding dual payments.

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927 to a case involving dual payment:
The High Court analyzed whether Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927 applied to a situation where a dual payment was made due to a technical flaw in the web portal. The Court concluded that the term "excess payment" in Section 19 did not encompass a dual payment scenario. It held that the petitioner's dual payment, resulting from a system error, did not fall under the purview of Section 19, thereby rejecting the application of the section in this case.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs in granting refunds:
The judgment addressed the contention that the Commissioner of Customs lacked jurisdiction to grant refunds in cases not covered by Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927. The Court clarified that if Section 19 did not apply, the Commissioner of Customs could not entertain refund applications beyond the statutory period. It emphasized the need for compliance with the provisions of the relevant statute in refund matters.

Issue 3: Classification of payment under the Lighthouse Act, 1927:
The Court deliberated on the distinction between excess payment and dual payment under the Lighthouse Act, 1927. It highlighted that the Act did not differentiate between these types of payments. The judgment emphasized that any refund claim should align with the provisions of Section 19, requiring claims to be made within six months from the payment date.

Issue 4: Compliance with the statutory period for refund claims under Section 19:
Regarding the statutory period for refund claims under Section 19, the Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed timeline. It noted that any application for refund beyond the stipulated six-month period would not be permissible under the Act. The judgment underscored the significance of statutory compliance in refund proceedings.

Issue 5: Authority responsible for refunding dual payments:
In resolving the matter of refunding dual payments, the Court directed the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P., to refund the amount to the petitioner within one month. The Court clarified that the responsibility for refunding dual payments rested with the appropriate authority, emphasizing the need for timely compliance to avoid further disputes.

The judgment by the Kerala High Court addressed various legal issues arising from a case involving dual payments and the applicability of Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927. It clarified the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs in granting refunds, the classification of payments under the Act, and the importance of complying with statutory timelines for refund claims. The Court ultimately directed the responsible authority to refund the dual payment within a specified period, emphasizing the need for timely resolution to prevent prolonged litigation and potential interest liabilities.