9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petitions have chosen to plead many unnecessary facts and at the same time have left out the vital points so much so that it becomes imperative on our part to imagine by ourselves as to what they really want from this Court. We at first thought of releasing the cases from CAV and asked the petitioners to furnish better and further particulars. However, thanks to the counter-affidavit filed by the State-respondents, the important facts missing in the cases of the petitioners have now been brought to our notice. This, therefore, obviates the necessity to rehear the cases. 2. Following the decisions of this Court as affirmed by the apex Court holding that the contract for transportation of foodgrains excuted for and on behalf of the FCI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfer of right: provided that till the Government notify the rate, the prevailing rate shall continue: Provided that no such deduction shall be made from the bill(s) or invoice(s) of the transferer where the amounts received as penalty for defaults in payment or as damages for any loss or damage caused to the goods by the person to whom such transfer was made, and (3) The amount deducted under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be deposited into the Government Treasury by challan in Form XVIII by the person making such deduction within 7 days of the month following that in which the deduction is made. (4) The person making such deduction under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall, at the time of payment or discharge, furnish to the person from whose b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dded Tax Act, 2004 ("the Act" for short) and that the amount so deducted shall be deposited into the Government Treasury by the person making such deduction within 7 days of the month following that in which the deduction is made. Sub-rule (11) mandates that if such person fails to make the deduction or, after making the deduction fails to deposit the amount so deducted, he shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rates contained in Section 44 (it should be read as "Section 45") of the Act on the amount so deducted. 4. In terms of the direction of this Court vide its order dated 18-2-2014 passed in WP(C) No. 16 of 2014, the State-respondents in W.P. (C) No. 1356 of 2016 had already refunded a surn of Rs. 29,86,302/-, which was deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Rs. 32,64,886/- which was not deposited to the State Government exchequer at 0040 Head of Account. "In this paragraph, the petitioner stated that gross amount of Rs. 82,83,154/- out of this the Tax Organization had already refunded interest amounting to Rs. 31,29,134/- and hence the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (FCI) shall have to refund interest of Rs. 51,54,020/- (coming out of calculation as Rs. 82,83,154 - Rs. 31,29,134/-). Further an amount of Rs. 1,88,558/- was paid to the petitioner vide cheque No. 552480, dated 16-12-2016 as interest @ 12% against the amount of Rs. 15,57,570/- during the period from 8-5-2015 to 9-5-2016 as per memo No. F.V-2(3)/TAX/2016-17(P-VI)/9638-42, dated 17-11-2016 of the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old that the FCI never complied with sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules requiring them to deposit all the deducted amounts into the Government Treasury by Challans in Form XVIII within 7 days of the month following the date on which the deductions were so made from the bills of the petitioners in both the cases. The belated deposits made by them cannot now save them from paying the statutory interest to the petitioners. The FCI has entered into the shoes of the State-respondents for any liability to pay statutory interest to the petitioners with respect to the deducted amount not deposited by them to the State-respondents within the statutory period. On account of such omissions, deliberate or otherwise, the provision of sub-rule (11) of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory period, it should have been their liability to pay the statutory interest if no refund could be made by them in time; in that case, no liability to pay the interest could have been fastened upon them (FCI). Having withheld the money belonging to the petitioners inordinately without reasonable cause, they could not now complain that they are not liable to pay the interest and any such liability should be satisfied by the State-respondents, who indisputably never received the deducted amount in question from them (FCI). In our opinion, the conduct of the FCI in withholding the amount, legitimately due to the petitioners in both the cases is not only reprehensible and smacks of colourable exercise or abuse of power but could also pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
