9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner for refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- is justified since it is a settled position that the State authorities cannot retain the excess amount which is not in accordance with law and same would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. On a reading Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme, the defect notice is issued when there is a shortfall in making the payment and not when an applicant has paid the correct amount. In the instant case, on a perusal of the defect notice it states that requisite amount payable is Rs. 66,17,057/-, whereas Petitioner has paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- which is excess payment and not short payment. Therefore, even on this count, defect notice is contrary to Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme. Reliance placed by Respondents on Section 18 of the Settlement Scheme for not granting the refund is also misconceived. Section 18 provides that under no circumstances, shall the applicant be entitled to get refund of the amount paid under the Settlement Scheme. In the instant case, Petitioner is not seeking refund of Rs. 8,46,84,821/- which is the undisputed amount paid under the Settlement Scheme, but is seeking a refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- which is refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er also informed Respondents not to adjust the refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- which arose on account of appeal order for the year 2011-12 against the demand for the year 2010-2011. 8. On 13th May 2019, Petitioner informed Respondents that they have made online application under Settlement Scheme for the year 2010-2011 and paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- as per the said scheme against the original outstanding dues of Rs. 14,00,74,790/-. Petitioner also enclosed with the said letter the challan evidencing the said payment and the acknowledgement of Respondents having received the said application in Form-1. 9. On 14th May 2019, defect notice was issued by Respondents under Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme, wherein it was informed to Petitioner that the requisite amount payable for the year 2010-2011 under the scheme is only Rs. 66,17,057/-. It seems that the requisite amount of Rs. 66,17,057/- is arrived at after adjusting the refund for the year 2011-2012 amounting to Rs. 10,69,89,606/- and post application made by Petitioner. 10. On 23rd May 2019, i.e., after Petitioner availing the benefit of the Settlement Scheme for 2010 2011, Respondents issued a refund adjustment order under Rule 55 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prior years. Petitioner, therefore, submitted that they are entitled to the refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for the year 2011-2012 alongwith interest. Submissions of Respondent:- 13. Ms. Vyas, learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondent-State placed reliance on Section 18 of the Settlement Scheme which provides that under no circumstances, the applicant shall be entitled to get refund of the amount paid under the said Act. It is, therefore, her submission that on account of this provision, Petitioner is not entitled to the refund as claimed. At the same time, Ms. Vyas agreed that giving purely by numbers, there has been an excess payment by Petitioner of Rs. 10,69,89,606/-. Analysis and conclusions:- 14. There is no dispute that as per the Settlement Scheme for the year 2010-2011, Petitioner is liable to make payment of Rs. 8,46,84,821/-. There is also no dispute that the said amount for the year 2010-2011 as per the Settlement Scheme was paid by Petitioner on 13th May 2019 and same was communicated to Respondents alongwith the copies of challan on 14th May 2019, and same was also acknowledged on the said date by Respondents. Therefore, as on 13th May 2019, there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents have arrived at the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,30,85,284/- after adjusting the refund for the year 2011-2012, when refund adjustment order is itself of 23rd May 2019. Therefore, the defect notice itself is defective and not in accordance with the law. Furthermore, on a reading Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme, the defect notice is issued when there is a shortfall in making the payment and not when an applicant has paid the correct amount. In the instant case, on a perusal of the defect notice it states that requisite amount payable is Rs. 66,17,057/-, whereas Petitioner has paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- which is excess payment and not short payment. Therefore, even on this count, defect notice is contrary to Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme. 18. Reliance placed by Respondents on Section 18 of the Settlement Scheme for not granting the refund is also misconceived. Section 18 provides that under no circumstances, shall the applicant be entitled to get refund of the amount paid under the Settlement Scheme. In the instant case before us, Petitioner is not seeking refund of Rs. 8,46,84,821/- which is the undisputed amount paid under the Settlement Scheme, but is seeking a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
