9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee irrespective of the period covered under the refund application. It was held that refusing to return the amount would go against the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Period of limitation u//s Section 54 of the CGST Act is not applicable - general provisions provided under the Limitation Act is applicable to claim refund of such duty This writ-application succeeds and is hereby allowed. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11905 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Appearance: MR HARDIK P MODH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs : A) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the required proceedings in relation to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not provide separate category for claiming refund of such amount. 4. The writ-applicant has preferred the captioned writ-application on the following grounds : 5. This Court in the writ-applicant s own case vide order dated 23.01.2020 declared the Notification No.8/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and the Entry No.10 of the Notification No.10/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 ultra vires as they lacked the legislative competency. This Court held that the levy of the IGST under the RCM on the Ocean Freight for the service provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods through vessel from a place outside India to customs frontier of India is unconstitutional. 6. Article 265 of the Constitution of India provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Since the amount of IGST collected by the Central Government is without authority of law, the Revenue is obliged to refund the amount erroneously collected. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Bhailal Bhai and others, AIR 1964 SC 1006, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that, where sales tax, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... say so because the very levy has been declared to be unauthorized by the Supreme Court in the case of Co mmissioner of Central Excise Customs, BhubaneswarI vs. Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. (Supra). The Apex Court held that in absence of any notification under section 7 of the Coal Mines Act, the customs department could not levy any duty from the importers relying solely on the notification issued under section 6 of the Coal Mines Act. Such notification could authorize only collection of additional duty of excise. That being so, the collection of the amount from the petitioners could not take the colour of additional duty of customs either mistakenly or illegally collected. It is a case where the duty was collected without any authority of law. Such collection of duty is not illegal or unlawful or irregularly collected customs duty under the Customs Act, but a duty collected without authority of law and therefore opposed to Article 265 of the Constitution of India and is thus unconstitutional. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be bound by the limitation prescribed in the Customs Act, 1962 for claiming refund of excess duty or duty collected illegally. The period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As noticed earlier, the petitioner had all along, right from July 2004 been paying Education Cess and subsequently, from the year 2007 was paying Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess, till April 2014. It was only when the Circular dated 07.01.2014 came to be issued by the CBEC, clarifying the issue, that the petitioner came to know about its mistake. Considering the nature of the mistake and the fact that the issue was not free from doubt till the above circular came to be issued by the CBEC, it also cannot be said that the petitioner could with reasonable diligence have discovered the mistake. It appears that it is only sometime after the Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess came to be paid for the month of April 2014 that the petitioner came to know about its mistake and in July 2014, it filed the application for refund before the second respondent. Since the period of limitation begins to run only from the time when the applicant comes to know of the mistake, the application made by the petitioner was well within the prescribed period of limitation. Moreover, as discussed hereinabove, the retention of the Education Cess and Secondary and High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act are not applicable to the claim of refund made by the petitioner, the limitation prescribed under the said provision would also not be applicable and the general provisions under the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable. Section 17 of the Limitation Act inter alia provides that when a suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake, the period of limitation would not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the mistake, or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. Since the period of limitation begins to run only from the time when the applicant comes to know of the mistake, the application made by the petitioner was well within the prescribed period of limitation. Moreover, since the very retention of the Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess by the respondents is without authority of law, in the light of the decision of this court in Swastik Sanitarywares Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), the question of applying the limitation prescribed under section 11B of the CE Act would not arise. - Even in case where any amount is paid by way of self assessment, in the event any amount has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed by the decision of this Court in the case of Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. vs. Union of India (Special Civil Application No.1758 of 2020, decided on 26.02.2020), wherein this Court directed the respondent to pass an appropriate order in the refund application preferred by the assessee without raising any technical issue, within a period of four weeks. The relevant paragraph of the finding of this Hon ble Court is as under : 6 We may only say that since the Notification has been struck down as ultra vires, as a consequence of the same, the writ applicant seeks refund of the amount paid towards the IGST. However, for this purpose, the writ applicant will have to prefer an appropriate application addressed to the competent authority. If any such application is preferred for the refund of the amount, the authority concerned shall immediately look into the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law keeping in mind the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Mohit Minerals (supra). The competent authority shall not raise any technical issue with regard to the claim for refund of the IGST amount. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of four wee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
