9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no. 3 took precious 15 years Petitioner at the same time would also be entitled to refund of the balance amount together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum calculated with effect from 1-10-1986 in terms of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 20-3-1986 - Personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 on Assistant Commissioner imposed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited the amount of Rs. 15 lacs in the treasury. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dt. 30-3-1995 [1996 (83) E.L.T. 492 (S.C.)] upholding the order passed by the Tribunal as contained in Annexure-2 to the petition and thus confirming the liability of the petitioner to pay duty on 'Dant Manjan Lal' as determined by the Tribunal. 6. In normal course, on an application filed by the petitioner for determination of his dues in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal read with the order dated 20-3-1986 of the Supreme Court, the appropriate authority that is the respondent no. 3 would take appropriate steps for determination thereof and either issue orders of refund or issue a demand notice in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court as the case may be. But this was not to be and the application filed by the petitioner dated 26-6-1996 for refund of the excess amount along with interest in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No. 3 by order dated 30-9-1997. The petitioner unnecessarily was subjected to a 2nd round litigation of filing an appeal before the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of the order of the Tribunal as contained in Annexure-2. The liability having been determined, the petitioner became liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in terms of the Supreme Court order from the date the demand was raised i.e. 16-7-1981 until the date on which he made the deposit of Rs. 15 lacs under the order of the Supreme Court which was deposited in installments on 26-6-1986 and 29-9-1986. Even going by the latter of the two dates, the petitioner would become liable for payment of interest on the liability determined with effect from 16-7-1981 until 21-9-1986 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on such determination. The interest amount for the said period would be on or around Rs. 2,07,680/- approximately. Adding the liability thereon, the amount would be on or about Rs. 5,42,638/-. In stead the respondent no. 3 had made a rather ingenious calculation of the interest. The delay caused by him in determining the dues and determining the liability in terms of the Tribunal's order was shifted on to the petitioner and the respondent no. 3, at the first instance, calculated interest @ 12% per annum for the period 1-4-1986 to 25-5-1995 being the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e maintain that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, it is the duty of the State to do what is fair and just to the citizen, and the State should not seek to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizen by adopting a legalistic attitude but should do what fairness and justice demand……." 11. This was a case relating to reimbursement of Sales Tax. The opinion expressed by his Lordship of the Supreme Court was reiterated in recent judgment reported in 2010 (1) SCC 512 (Urban Improvement Trust Bikaner v. Mohan Lal). Dismissing the S.L.P. the Supreme Court held as follows :- "Para-5; It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigations by Governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and high-handed manner. They cannot behave like private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently……" 12. His Lordship re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on 29-9-1986. The petitioner at the same time would also be entitled to refund of the balance amount together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum calculated with effect from 1-10-1986 in terms of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 20-3-1986. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Patna as contained in Annexure-9 is set aside. The respondent no. 3 the Assistant Commissioner is directed to determine the liability of the petitioner afresh in terms of the observation of this Court as fully indicated hereinabove and after adjusting the liability refund the balance amount to the petitioner in terms of the order aforesaid within a period of three months from today but not beyond 31-12-2010 failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% w.e.f. 1-1-2011 until the date of payment. 17. As the petitioner has been relegated to unwarranted protracted litigation since after the order of the Supreme Court by reason of the harassing attitude of the respondent no. 3, hence Sri P. Vijay Kumar the then Assistant Commissioner and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
