2022 (4) TMI 1249 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking release of refund claim alongwith pendent lie interest - interest as per Section 42 of DVAT Act on Refund claimed amount - liability to pay exemplary damages to the petitioner - respondents had acted in malafide and colorable exercise of power in with holding the refunds or not - Jurisdiction of civil courts to grant such refunds - HELD THAT - The concerned Respondents are directed to decide the claim of refund of the Petitioner for ₹ 13,15,968/-, for the 4th quarter of the Assessment Year 2013-14 along with interest as claimed, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the principles of unjust enrichment propounded by the Hon ble Supreme Court in MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that The jurisdiction of civil courts is not barred in entirety regarding the attack against the levy and/or claim for refund. The decision shall be taken by the concerned Respondents, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking refund release with interest and damages due to alleged malafide actions by respondents.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of a refund amount along with interest and damages due to alleged malafide actions by the respondents. The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents to release the eligible refund of a specific amount along with pendent lie interest and pay interest as per Section 42 of the DVAT Act. Additionally, the petitioner sought exemplary damages for the alleged malafide actions of the respondents. The court issued notice, and the Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents accepted notice on their behalf. With the consent of the counsels, the petition was finally disposed of.

The court heard the arguments presented by both parties and examined the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner specifically requested a direction to release the refund amount for a particular assessment year along with interest as per the DVAT Act. In response, the court directed the concerned respondents to decide on the refund claim of the petitioner for the specified amount and assessment year, along with interest, in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and government policies. The court emphasized the importance of considering the principles of unjust enrichment as established by the Supreme Court in a previous case. The decision on the refund claim was to be made expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of the court order.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the aforementioned directions and observations. The judgment aimed to ensure a fair and timely resolution of the refund claim while upholding the principles of law and justice.