2021 (2) TMI 209 - HC - Customs

Seeking direction to Respondents (No. 1-3) to refund the amount of INR.2,50,00,000/- illegally collected retained without the issuance of show cause notice - seeking direction to Respondents (No. 1-3) grant interest at the rate of 18% on refund of amount illegally collected and retained, from the date of collection till the date of payment - seeking restraint on Respondents from initiating any coercive action against the Petitioner till the disposal of the writ petition - HELD THAT - The respondent No.3 are directed to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount as stated in the prayer clause, in accordance with law, Rules, Regulations and Government Policies applicable to the facts of the case and on the basis of evidence on record, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties. Decision shall be taken by respondent No.3 as expeditiously as possible and practicable. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for refund of amount illegally collected without show cause notice
2. Grant of interest on the refund amount
3. Prohibition on coercive action by respondents
4. Direction for suitable decision on the refund claim by respondent No.3

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to refund an amount of INR 2,50,00,000 that was allegedly collected illegally without the issuance of a show cause notice. The petitioner also requested a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from taking coercive action until the writ petition is disposed of.

2. The counsel for the petitioner suggested that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing respondent No.3 to consider it as a representation for the refund of the specified amount and make a decision in accordance with the law within a defined timeframe. The court, after hearing the arguments from both parties, directed respondent No.3 to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide on the refund claim as per the law, rules, regulations, and government policies applicable to the case. The decision was to be based on the evidence on record, with all concerned parties given a fair opportunity to present their case. The court also instructed respondent No.3 to consider the payment of interest on the principal amount as per the legal provisions.

3. The court, after considering the submissions and limited arguments made by the petitioner's counsel, disposed of the writ petition with the direction for respondent No.3 to expeditiously decide on the refund claim and the question of interest payment. The decision-making process was to be conducted promptly and in adherence to the relevant legal framework and policies.

4. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the court's observations and directions for respondent No.3 to treat the petition as a representation for the refund claim and decide on it promptly, considering all legal aspects, evidence, and the possibility of interest payment on the principal amount.