9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A ORDER (PER : MR.J.B.PARDIWALA) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Vishal J. Dave, the learned standing counsel, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the opponents. This is an application at the instance of the original respondents of the Special Civil Application No.15925 of 2018 with the following prayers : a) This Hon ble Court is pleased to admit and allow this petition. b) This Hon ble Court be pleased to recall or review order dated 10.07.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.15925 of 2018 in the interest of justice; c) Such other and further relief as this Hon ble Court may deem just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the petitioner. While disposing of the main matter i.e. the Special Civil Application No.15925 of 2018 vide order dated 10.07.2019, this court observed in paragraphs 14 to 25 as under : 14. Section 56 of the CGST Act provides that if any tax ordered to be refunded under subsection( 5) of Section 54 to any applicant is not refunded within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application under subsection (1) of that section, interest at such rate not exceeding 6% as may be specified in the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be electronically credited to any of the bank accounts of the applicant mentioned in his registration particulars and as specified in the application for refund. 16. We shall now look into few decisions of different High Courts including our High Court on the subject. 17. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 158 (Cal.) held as under: 4. In my view, the time taken for refund of the money in terms of the CEGAT's order is unreasonable. CEGAT's order was passed on 21st June, 2001 so one could expect either the matter to be taken to higher up, and for this, under law ninety days time is given and on expiry of this time the department was expected to refund this money, since it is a Government Department. So, unlike the ordinary citizen another three months of grace time may be given for taking action. So, the department should have released this amount within the reasonable time of six months, namely by 31st December, 2001. Unfortunately, this has not been done. So, I think after expiry of 31st December, 2001 the Government has no justification for withholding this money, and I hold this is an ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANU/GJ/0420/2015 held that: 16. From the conjoint reading of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Others (supra) and the latter decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra) it appears that the liability to pay interest on interest by the Revenue is not approved and to that extent the contention of the Revenue can be maintained. But the further contention of the Revenue that no interest whatsoever would be payable if the refund of the amount of tax or refund of the amount deposited towards tax is to be made, no interest whatsoever would be available by way of compensatory measure. 17. In our view, the general principles for awarding compensation to the Assessee for the delay in receiving monies properly due to it is not disapproved by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra). 13. In our view, the above-referred observation made by this Court in the above-referred decision in case of Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra) is a complete answer to the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /07/2017 2,17,718 04/12/17 94 13/07/2017 12534 25/04/2018 236 14/07/2017 1,97,712 04/12/17 94 14/07/2017 2,26,655 04/12/17 94 14/07/2017 19720 25/04/2018 236 15/07/2017 16274 04/12/17 94 15/07/2017 25464 25/04/2018 236 15/07/2017 12333 25/04/2018 236 15/07/2017 14917 25/04/2018 236 22. The position of law appears to be well-settled. The provisions relating to an interest of delayed payment of refund have been consistently held as beneficial and nondiscriminatory. It is true that in the taxing statute the principles of equity may have little role to play, but at the same time, any statut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal or court which has attained finality and the same is not refunded within sixty days from the date of receipt of application filed consequent to such order, interest at such rate not exceeding nine per cent. as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council shall be payable in respect of such refund from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of receipt of application till the date of refund. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, where any order of refund is made by an Appellate Authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court against an order of the proper officer under subsection (5) of section 54, the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Appellate Tribunal or by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said subsection (5). Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that no case is made out for review of the order passed by this Court dated 10.07.2019. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court thought fit to award interest @ 9% per annu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
