TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings, when the miscellaneous petition filed is curative in nature and not used for supplanting substantive law, in exercise of inherent powers, shall entertain such petitions for implementing the orders of the Court. Power of the Court does not end with the passing of the order, but more so, in seeing that the order is implemented in letter and spirit, howsoever difficult it may be. In case where the orders passed by the Court are not implemented, the Court, in exercise of the inherent powers, should see to it that the orders passed by the Court are implemented. - Insofar as the interest for the delayed payment is concerned, Rule 34 mandates that the assessing authority shall refund without interest within three months from the date of communication of the order, any excess tax found to have been collected. A reading of Rule 34 makes it abundantly clear that beyond the period of three months from the date of communication of the authorisation (order of the High Court), any delay in refund of excess tax is liable to attract interest and the department is bound to pay the same. In the present case, inspite of the order being despatched by this Court on 15.4.2014, almost a year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents pertaining to the alleged purchase of raw films were effected. However the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue expressed his inability to produce the same on the ground that none of the documents pertaining to inspection were available with the Revenue. However, considering the fact that criminal proceedings are already pending before the Criminal Court, this Court again asked the Additional Government Pleader to find out whether anything was available with the police official or in the learned Magistrate Court as regards the seizure of records during the inspection. Learned Government Pleader placed before this Court the letter written by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) T.Nagar (North) Assessment Circle to the Special Government Pleader dated 10.03.2014 enclosing the copy of the letter received from the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Wing dated 10.03.2014. The said letter reads as under: Kind attention is invited to the subject and reference cited above. In this connection, it is intimated that the proceedings/statement given by the assessee before the Enforcement Officers of the Commercial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken up for hearing, learned single Judge of this Court passed the following order dismissing the writ petition stating that the petitioner should approach the appropriate Tax Court. The relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below:- In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for refund of a sum of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- which according to the petitioner was deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Tax Cases (Revision) Nos.119, 120 and 121 of 2009. The said tax cases were disposed of by order dated 21.03.2014. If the petitioner seeks for any direction pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, then he has to move the Division Bench either by way of separate application or a miscellaneous application in the tax case revision and for which purpose, a separate writ petition is not maintainable and that too before a Single Judge of this Court. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application in the tax cases revision numbers seeking for the relief sought for in this writ petition. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit has been specified for the respondent/Department to pass a revised assessment, except that what the statute contemplates is that once a revised assessment order is passed, if refund is not granted within three months from the date of the revised assessment, interest is liable to be paid on the amount to be refunded on and from the said date, i.e., after three months, till the date of payment. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents/Department and also perused the material available on record. This Court also gave its anxious considerations to the different Sections of the Act and Rules on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the fact that the deposit was made pursuant to a direction issued by this Court while entertaining the tax case (revisions) vide order dated 3.8.10. It was urged that on the petitioner succeeding in the revisions, the Department is bound to implement the orders of this Court passed under Section 38 (4) (a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing authority shall give effect to the order of the High Court (Special Tribunal) within three months from the date of communication of the order. It is clear from the above provisions that there appears to be no other option except to comply with the order of the High Court (Special Tribunal), except where the order in issue is challenged in a higher forum and the order has been stayed. 15. It is evident from the record that the respondents/Department have not filed any appeal against the order of this Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the provisions, as noticed above, have not been followed by the assessing authority, thereby causing grave injustice to the petitioner. It is also not denied by the respondents/department that till date the order has not been given effect to by refunding the amount deposited by the petitioner. 16. In the above scenario, the moot question arises whether after disposal of the tax case revision, it would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain further miscellaneous petition, even if such petition does not touch upon the merits of the matter that has already been decided. However, it is pointed out b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court by various statutes though are not limited by those statutes. (emphasis in original) This Court held that these powers also exist independent of the statutes with a view to doing complete justice between the parties. This power exists as a separate and independent basis of jurisdiction, apart from the statutes, and stands upon the foundation for preventing injustice in the process of litigation and to do complete justice between the parties. 88. This Court in Supreme Court Bar Assn. case further observed that: (SCC p. 431, para 47) 47 .... This plenary jurisdiction is, thus, the residual source of power which this Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so and in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to do complete justice between the parties, while administering justice according to law. (emphasis in original) In the event the parties do not or refuse to abide by its decision, the Supreme Court would have no option, but to take recourse to the provisions of Article 129 of the Constitution or under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 18. The inherent powers of the Court under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the orders passed by the Court are not implemented, the Court, in exercise of the inherent powers, should see to it that the orders passed by the Court are implemented. 20. In the background of the well settled position of law as emerges from the above decision of the Supreme Court, the facts, not being disputed are that, inspite of the petitioner having succeeded in the tax case revisions, which order has been passed way back on 21.3.2014, the deposit, as made by the petitioner pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 3.8.2010, has not been refunded back to the petitioner. Though the petitioner has made representation on 29.5.14 asking for refund, the Department had issued a reply stating that action will be taken after receipt of the orders of this Court. It is nowhere the case of the department that it has not received the orders of this Court. Inspite of passage of more than a year since the order was passed, which order, as is evident from the Court records, has been despatched on 15.4.14, no action has been taken by the Department to refund the amount, inspite of the second representation made by the petitioner on 27.10.2014. 21. Therefore, app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
