9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 567 - HC - Indian LawsDemand of Interest on account of delay in payment of the penalty - violation of provisions of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 - whether the petitioner is liable to pay interest to the CCI on account of delay in payment of penalty as levied upon it? - HELD THAT - It is clear from the plain reading of Regulation 5 of the Recovery Regulations, that simple interest at the rate of one and one half per cent for every month, or part of the month, commencing from the date immediately after expiry of the period mentioned in the demand notice, is payable. The contention that since the order passed by CCI had been stayed, there was no delay in making the penalties, is unsustainable. The said issue is no longer res integra - In the STATE OF RAJASTHAN ANR. VERSUS J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. ANR. 2011 (7) TMI 1300 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court had examined several other decisions and had authoritatively reiterated the position that wherever an interim order or stay is granted, the beneficiary of the interim order is bound to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order unless the final order indicates otherwise. It is material to note that the CCI had found the petitioner to be falling foul of Section 3 of the Act. This finding was not disturbed by COMPAT. The COMPAT had merely reduced the penalty and had modified CCI s order dated 10.07.2015 to that extent. Such modification would, obviously, relate back to CCI s order, that is, the order dated 10.07.2015. The contention that the order of CCI had merged with the order passed by COMPAT is correct. However, the COMPAT order reaffirmed CCI s decision to levy penalty and that decision, having been sustained, cannot be considered as inoperative or non-existent for the period during which it was suspended on account of the stay order. The interest on such penalty being a statutory levy is required to be paid - the petitioner is required to pay interest on the delayed payment - Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the demand notices for interest on delayed payment of penalty. 2. Applicability of Regulation 5 of the CCI (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011. 3. Impact of the stay order by COMPAT on the liability to pay interest. 4. Relevance of the principle of restitution in the context of interest on penalties. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the demand notices for interest on delayed payment of penalty: The petitioner challenged the demand notices dated 01.10.2015, 17.01.2017, and 14.12.2018, which called for the payment of interest on the delayed penalty. The petitioner argued that these notices were illegal as they were issued during the pendency of the appeal in COMPAT, which had granted a stay on the penalty order. The court, however, found this contention unsustainable. It held that the stay order did not negate the liability to pay interest, and upon the vacation of the stay, the obligation to pay interest on the penalty revived. 2. Applicability of Regulation 5 of the CCI (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011: Regulation 5 mandates that if the penalty is not paid within the specified period, the enterprise must pay simple interest at 1.5% per month. The court emphasized that this regulation applies irrespective of any interim stay, and interest accrues from the date immediately after the expiry of the period mentioned in the demand notice until the penalty is paid. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that no valid demand notice was issued prior to the payment of the penalty, thereby negating the interest liability. 3. Impact of the stay order by COMPAT on the liability to pay interest: The petitioner argued that the stay order by COMPAT and the subsequent reduction of the penalty should absolve it from paying interest. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan v. J.K. Synthetics Limited, which held that interest is payable for the period of stay if the interim order is ultimately vacated. The court concluded that the stay order did not relieve the petitioner from the obligation to pay interest, and the reduced penalty, as affirmed by COMPAT, still attracted interest for the delayed payment. 4. Relevance of the principle of restitution in the context of interest on penalties: The court invoked the principle of restitution, which mandates that the party benefiting from an interim order must compensate the other party if the interim order is vacated. This principle ensures that the successful party is restored to the position it would have been in if the interim order had not been granted. The court noted that the petitioner, having benefited from the stay, was liable to pay interest on the penalty for the period during which the stay was in effect, aligning with the statutory requirement under Regulation 5. Conclusion: The court upheld the demand notices for interest on the delayed payment of the penalty, emphasizing the statutory obligation under Regulation 5. It ruled that the stay order by COMPAT did not absolve the petitioner from paying interest, and the principle of restitution required the petitioner to compensate for the delayed payment. The petitioner's arguments were found unpersuasive, and the court affirmed the CCI's authority to demand interest on the penalty.
|
