9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment and, not dual payment , made by the petitioner, on account of a technical flaw, in the web portal, in not accepting the online payment and thus, the writ petitioner was constrained to make a manual payment of ₹ 6,33,144/-. Now that, the amount is stated to have been deposited with the office of the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P., with a view to resolve the dispute and to avoid further litigation, a direction to the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P. is issued, to refund the sum of ₹ 6,33,144/- to M/s.Seahorse Ship Agencies Private Limited, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal disposed off. - WA NO. 574 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he State and its authorities are not expected to act in a Shylochian manner and squeeze money from its citizens. Levy of any tax/dues should have the authority of law. If the petitioner calculated Light Dues in respect of the Vessel correctly and remitted the correct amount, then Section 19 of the Act, 1927 cannot be resorted to withhold an erroneous double payment or dual payment made by a citizen due to a system error or failure. 21. The State is not expected to get itself unduly enriched by erroneous or forced or inadvertent payments of money made by its citizens. The State is not expected to bring in defence of limitation in respect of such payments resulting in unjust enrichment. The claim of the petitioner for refund of the dual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case, the Learned Single Judge ought to have considered the issue as one of proceedings for recovery of money from the Debtor, the 3rd Respondent herein being the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, who holds the money repayable and that the Appellant Commissioner of Customs would have nothing to do with the refund. E. The Customs Authorities cannot go beyond the statute to classify the Petitioner's claim as being one for refund of duplicate payment as the same has not been defined in the Lighthouse Act, 1927 nor does the Act make a distinction between excess payment and double/duplicate payment as contended by the Writ Petitioner and hence the amount paid by the petitioner can only be classified under Section 19 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also to be noted that acting on the judgment of this court in W.P.(C)No.17924 of 2020, the Deputy Director, Office of the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P., (respondent No.3) has issued a letter dated 8.2.2021 to the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin (appellant herein) to refund the sum of ₹ 6,33,144/- to M/s.Seahorse Ship Agencies Private Limited (1st respondent herein) from the offline collection of light dues under the intimation to the above said office. Copy of the said letter has also been given to M/s.Seahorse Ship Agencies Private Limited. For brevity, letter dated 8.2.2021 is extracted: Dated 08/02/2021 To, The Commissioner of Customs Customs House, Willingdon Island Cochin-682009 Sub: WP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 6,33,144/- collected offline has been deposited with the Office of the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P. Writ court has directed the appellant herein and also the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P. (additional respondent No.3 therein) to refund to the petitioner, the dual payment made within a period of one month. 7. Now that, the amount is stated to have been deposited with the office of the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P., we are of the view that to resolve the dispute and to avoid further litigation, a direction to the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships, U.P. is issued, to refund the sum of ₹ 6,33,144/- to M/s.Seahorse Ship Agencies Private Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
