Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 1114 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2016 (11) TMI 1114 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - Refund claim - interest on delayed payment - Held that:- We are of the opinion that the sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- has been refunded to the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal clearly records at para 14 that no penalty could have been imposed on the Bank. The penalty imposed on the Bank has been set aside. Once that penalty has been set aside, then, if no further proceedings were initiated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

10,00,000/-. That should have been done within a reasonable time. - To that extent, there is merit in the submission of Mr. Patil that if that amount was not refundable at all and on the grounds now urged, namely, unjust enrichment, then, there was no occasion for the respondents to have honoured the Tribunal's order after such a considerable delay. The fact that ₹ 10,00,000/- have been refunded and in terms of the submissions made in para 7 of the affidavit in reply, then, the defenc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/- at the rate of 8% p.a. from 1-3-2015 till actual payment/realisation. The amount of interest at such rate be computed and the same be released in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Writ Petition No. 764 of 2015 - Dated:- 11-7-2016 - S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI JJ Appellant Represented by: Mr. Vishwa Patil with Mr. Vikramsinh Yadav and Mr. Ashwin Hawelikar i/by Mr. Hiren .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ner is claiming interest @ 18% (higher interest) from March, 2014. 2. The refund sought is of a sum of ₹ 16,00,000/- stated to have been deposited by the petitioner Bank by a cheque dated 16-8-1996. The deposited amount is evidenced by the several receipts which have been issued. Now a claim is laid in this petition for refund of that sum along with interest at 18% per annum from 21-12-2010 till 21-3-2014, and further interest at 18% per annum from 21-3-2014 till realisation. 3. The petiti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

preferred an appeal being Appeal No.220 of 1996 and the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange disposed of the same on 21-12-2010. It has set aside the penalty imposed on the petitioner and the three officers by this final order. 6. After the final order, the Department was called upon to refund the said amount. That having not been refunded, the present petition. 7. An affidavit in reply has been filed, of which paras 3 and 4 read thus: 3. I say that pursuant to investigation, a Show Cause Not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

k and its three officials complied with the said order and paid the amount of penalties imposed on them to the Directorate. 4. Thereafter, the Petitioner bank filed Appeal No.220/96 before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE) against the said Adjudication Order dated 28.06.1996. The ATFE vide order dated 29.12.2010 allowed the said appeal and ordered as under: 14. Now comes the role of appellant in Appeal No.220/96 i.e. M/s. ANZ Grindlays Bank, the role of this bank is that an NRE .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Director of Enforcement that the Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/-on the petitioner's predecessor. The penalties of ₹ 2,00,000/-each were imposed on the three employees. 9. The predecessor complied with the order and equally the three officers and paid the sums. 10. Thereafter, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Appeal and set aside the penalty as against the pre-decessor Bank. But there is nothing therein with regard to the penalties imposed on the thr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ounsel appearing for the petitioner at some length and perusing with his assistance the writ petition and the annexures thereto, we are of the opinion that the sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- has been refunded to the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal clearly records at para 14 that no penalty could have been imposed on the Bank. The penalty imposed on the Bank has been set aside. Once that penalty has been set aside, then, if no further p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version