9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0A in Chapter IV under Part XII of the Constitution of India. When there is breach of constitutional right either by omission or by commission by the State such breach can be remedied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner could have earned interest during this period but because of the withholding this could not be done. I find in support of my observation from the judgment in case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Chennai v. Calcutta Chemical Co. Limited [ 2001 (6) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] . In that case a pre deposit amount was directed to be refunded with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Of course at that point of time the rate of interest of Bank might be higher, but having regard to the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no dispute as regard facts, invoking of writ jurisdiction is not inappropriate. Here the fact is required to be narrated in brief. By the first authority the petitioner was asked to pay penalty and the other duty which he did. Thereafter he took up this matter in appeal to the CEGAT. Ultimately the CEGAT vide its order dated 21st June, 2001 set aside the order and allowed the refund of the amount deposited to the extent of 50%. 2. This CEGAT's judgment and order containing direction for refund were not taken up to the higher forum as yet rather this order has been accepted by refunding a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on 3rd April, 2003. After having received the aforesaid principal amount the writ petitioner claimed for payment of intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny departmental procedure is to be adhered to for release of the amount. 3. Therefore, I am unable to accept the argument of Mr. Banerjee in absence of these particulars and explanation in the affidavit that there were reasons for delayed refund of the amount. 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly by the Reserve Bank of India in case of its bond not exceeding 8% per annum, will be appropriate. Therefore, I direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 8% on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10 lacs to be calculated from January 2002 till 3rd April, 2003 when the payment of principal amount was effected. This payment of interest shall be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. However, there will be no interest for this period. 5. There will be no order as to costs. 6. Accordingly the order passed by the department is set aside. 7. Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, learned Counsel for the respondents pray for stay of operation of this order and I am of the view since I have given three months time f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
