9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng interest, therefore, would not arise. For multiple reasons, such approach was wholly erroneous. Firstly, whether the principles of unjust enrichment, as expounded by the Supreme Court in case of Mafatlal Industries would apply at all is a question. More importantly, such question could not have been considered by the authority without any opportunity to the petitioner. Even more importantly, the claim of interest is statutorily recognized under Section 54 of the Sales Tax Act and flows from the petitioners' right to seek refund. The authority who himself granted such refund, now questions the legality and validity of his own order. He did not have any power of review. The revision authority has not yet taken his order in revision. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods are situated in another State. Under such situation, petitioners had paid sales tax to the State Sales Tax Department under protest on the lease agreements outside the State of Gujarat. The situation, however, was clarified by the Supreme Court in case of 20 th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Maharastra (2000) 119 STC 182 (SC). By virtue of such decision, the petitioners became entitled to refund of the tax so collected by the department and paid by the petitioners under protest. Under such background, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal allowed the petitioners' two appeals and set aside the assessment as well as the appellate orders by a judgement dated 09.07.2009 in following manner: These two second appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted from 18.03.2013 i.e. the date of the judgement of the first appellate authority. The case of the petitioners is that the refund should carry interest for the entire period from the date of the deposit of the tax till actual payment in terms of Section 54(1) of the Sales Tax Act. 6. When the petitioners approached the competent authority for such further interest, such request, came to be rejected by a common order dated 30.10.2015 covering all three assessment years which order is impugned in this petition. In such order, the authority gave following reasons for not granting interest. Keeping in view the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Shelly Products and Anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd, in our opinion, the competent authority has committed a serious error in rejecting the application of the petitioners for interest. As noted, the petitioners succeeded before the Tribunal and the appellate authority, pursuant to which, the refund had to be paid. Such refund was actually paid to the petitioners alongwith partial interest. When the petitioners demanded interest for the full period, the authority conveyed to the petitioners that by virtue of the judgement of Supreme Court in case of Mafatlal Industries on the basis of principles of unjust enrichment, the petitioners were not entitled to any refund in the first place. Question of paying interest, therefore, would not arise. 8. For multiple reasons, such approach was whol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
