9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to be compensated for such deprivation. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 to pay interest @6% p.a. from 1st July 2018 upto 18th September 2023 on Rs. 7,15,962/- and upto 16th October 2023 on Rs. 6,04,118/- - petition disposed off. - K. R. SHRIRAM JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Bapat a/w. Ms. Sonali Bapat. For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 : Mr. Advait M. Sethna a/w. Ms. Niyanta Trivedi a/w. Mr. Harshad Singhnapukar. For the Respondent Nos.2 and 5: Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P. For the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4: Mr. Y. R. Mishra a/w. Mr. Harshad Singhnapukar. P.C.:- 1. Petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging failure on the part of respondents to grant refund of Rs. 13,21,897/- pertaining to Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on goods exported during the period July 2017 and August 2017. Petitioner is also claiming 9% interest or at such rate, the Court deems fit, in accordance with law. 2. Admittedly, petitioner had made a mistake of not showing the correct amount of refund in the return Form GSTR-3B for July 2017 and August 2017. It is petitioner s case that the portal does not allow correction in Form GSTR- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 of Vinoda B. Jain Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax and Ors. (2024) 462 ITR 58 is relevant and same reads as under : 10. One thing is certain and it cannot be denied that Petitioner is deprived of its justifiable money of Rs. 2,60,000/- from 25th September 2014 solely due to the inaction of the Revenue. Such inaction on the part of the Revenue is certainly contrary to the provisions of the Act and on general principles Petitioner ought to be compensated for such deprivation. Petitioner's money has been unjustifiably withheld by the Department for almost nine years without any rhyme or reason. Even this refund order has been passed as stated in the affidavit-in-reply only after the matter was listed at least four times and repeated adjournments were taken by the Revenue and after the Court put pressure on the Revenue. The refund is being given with interest after a substantial lapse of time and, in our view, Petitioner should be entitled to compensation for the inordinate delay. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeevkumar v. Union of India , after following principles and law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited, Pune v. CIT, held that &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue must compensate the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that matter directed the revenue to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date it became payable till the date it was actually paid holding the revenue solely responsible for the delayed payment. 35. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the revenue strongly relied upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 26 of the said judgment and would submit that, the award of interest on the refunded amount is as per the statutory provisions of law. When a specific provision has been made under the statute, such provision has to govern the field. 36. In our view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) would apply to the facts of this case. The respondents were solely responsible for the gross delay in not releasing the cash amount of the petitioners under section 132B (4) (b) of the Act, 1961 and thus cannot refuse the payment of compensation to the petitioners for wrongfully withholding the said amount from the date of assessment order till payment. 37. Delhi High Court in a case of Ajay Gupta (supra) has held that, since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . If the words in the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. 40. In this case, it is not the case of interpretation of section 132B (4) (b) of the Act, 1961 or under the said provision, the Courts would restrict obligation and liability of the revenue to pay interest or compensation upto the date of payment. The question for consideration of this Court raised by the petitioners is whether the respondents can refuse to compensate the petitioners for wrongfully withholding the cash amount of the petitioners though by the assessment order the liabilities of the petitioners were declared as nil beyond the date of assessment order. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Dilip Kumar Company (supra) thus would not advance the case of the revenue. (emphasis supplied) In this case also there has been an inordinate delay. Notwithstanding the order of the ITAT which attained finality on 25th September 2014, the Revenue did not consider it fit to return the cash of Rs. 2,60,000/- that was seized on or about 9th July 1996. Moreover, even after the PCIT passed the order on 31st December 2019 under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nery provided in a taxing Statute. Refund due and payable to the assessee is debt-owed and payable by the Revenue. The Government, there being no express statutory provision for payment of interest on the refund of excess amount/tax collected by the Revenue, cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors lawful monies with the accrued interest for the period of undue retention of such monies. The State having received the money without right, and having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under like circumstances. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right to interest. Whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. 39. In the present case, it is not in doubt that the payment of tax made by resident/ depositor is in excess and the department chooses to refund the excess payment of tax to the depositor. We have held the interest requires to be paid on such refunds. The catechize is from what date interest is payable, since the present case does not fall eith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
