2019 (3) TMI 94 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of the tax paid under protest - notifications granting reduced tax benefit to certain industries with a certain turnover - whether the prohibition on refund of tax already paid; could be mandated in the notification granting retrospective exemption or reduction of rate of tax? - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in Yesyem Arecanut Co. 2014 (3) TMI 737 - SUPREME COURT also considered the very same issue, where it was held that By amendment, though the rate of tax was reduced to 4%, the assessee cannot take advantage of the same and gain undue monetary advantage not due to him. When there are two decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, both by co-ordinate Benches, The High Court has to follow the later decision and in such circumstances, it is prudent to follow this decision as it is later to the decision CORPORATION BANK VERSUS SARASWATI ABHARANSALA AND ANOTHER 2008 (11) TMI 387 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of tax paid under protest by the petitioner.
2. Challenge to notifications granting reduced tax benefit to certain industries.
3. Validity of retrospective exemption granted to Khadi and Village Industries units.
4. Interpretation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 10 of the KGST Act.
5. Applicability of judgments in Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala and Yesyem Arecanut Co. v. State of Kerala.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a refund of taxes paid under protest for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05. The industry was classified under the Khadi and Village Industries Board. Initially, notifications granting reduced tax benefits to specific industries were challenged, but a Single Judge decision upholding the notifications was later reversed on appeal. Despite paying taxes under protest and not challenging assessment orders, the Government issued a retrospective exemption in 2000 for all K&VI units, prompting the petitioner to file a Writ Petition for a refund.

2. The petitioner's Senior Counsel argued that the refusal to refund the tax paid after the subsequent exemption violated Article 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 10 of the KGST Act. The contention was that the Government lacked the authority to impose tax liabilities not sanctioned by law. However, the Court noted that the earlier Supreme Court decision in Saraswati Abharansala favored the assessee in a similar scenario of retrospective tax rate reduction and prohibition on refunds, emphasizing unjust enrichment of the State.

3. The Court also considered the judgment in Yesyem Arecanut Co., which addressed the same issue within a narrow compass, focusing on whether prohibiting refunds in notifications granting retrospective exemptions was permissible. Despite conflicting decisions from the Supreme Court, the Court held that it must follow the later judgment and dismissed the Writ Petition, emphasizing the need to abide by the precedent set by co-ordinate Benches of the Supreme Court.

4. The legal battle revolved around the petitioner's right to a refund of taxes paid under protest, the Government's power to grant retrospective exemptions, and the interpretation of relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal principles and following precedent, even in the face of conflicting judgments, to ensure consistency and predictability in legal outcomes.