Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (1) TMI 692

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h effect from 22nd February, 1989 till the date of payment. - 214 of 2008 , 216, 219, 281 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2010 - Madan B. Lokur and Mukta Gupta, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Neela Gokhale and Ms. Geetika Panwar, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neelima Tripathi, Kuljeet Rawal, for Apparel Council and S.D. Dixit, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. This is a batch of four appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent filed by the Union of India against a common judgment and order dated 10th January, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. At the outset, it may be mentioned that six writ petitions were decided by the learned Singl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Consequently, the requirement of paying premium as well as the relevant clauses of the scheme were struck down. 5. The decision rendered by the Division Bench was challenged by the Union by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 3948-49/1989. On 7th August, 1996 the Supreme Court passed the following order :- No orders on the Intervention Application. Mr. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India candidly states that the policy and the decisions made thereon, upset by the High Court, are no longer in vogue and the Union of India has no intention for their revival in the immediate future. He says that these appeals can be disposed of leaving the questions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Union has filed these appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent. 10. The learned Additional Solicitor General contended that in view of the order of the Supreme Court the question of law determined by the Division Bench of this Court was left open for consideration. All that we can say is that the question of law was left open for determination by the Supreme Court and not by the High Court which has already taken a decision in the matter. This is clear from the language of the order of the Supreme Court leaving the questions of law open lest those may require to be agitated at a future date. 11. Nevertheless, we have examined the decision of the Division Bench with t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... After the relevant clauses in the public notice were struck down by the Division Bench, the Union was obliged to refund the amount unlawfully collected from the Respondents but they failed to do so. Instead, the Union compelled the Respondents to approach this Court for a refund of the amount unlawfully collected way back in 1989. The bogey of unjust enrichment raised after a gap of 20 years cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. We may also note that it has been held by the Supreme Court in Mahabir Kishore and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 1 = 1989 (43) E.L.T. 205 (S.C.) that a tax paid under a mistake of law is refundable under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For this propositi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed on behalf of the entire set of garment exporters which includes the Respondents M/s. Pearl Global Ltd. and others. In fact, the Guild had taken up a common cause for and on behalf of the garment exporters and it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the Respondents that none of the exporters in this appeal (as many as 18 of them) had any clue of the pendency or decision of such an important matter that was raised on their behalf by the Guild. 20. That apart, we find that ordinarily even a suit for recovery would not have been entertained after a gap of three years. In this case, the undisputed dates are : the decision of the Division Bench was rendered sometime in February, 1989; the decision of the Supreme C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates