TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so directed the writ petitioner to obtain certain letter of confirmation for M/s. Air UK Leasing Ltd. (AUL) confirming that a sum of ₹ 12.5 crores paid by them could be appropriated towards the dues of the writ petitioner in payment of inland air travel tax. 5. The writ petition before the High Court was filed challenging an order made by the Joint Secretary in a Revision Application, who by the said order had upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had, in turn, upheld the demand made by the Union of India on the respondent for payment of inland air travel tax purportedly collected by the respondent from the passengers along with the interest and penalty statutorily payable for non-deposit of such tax within the time stipulated in the statute. 6. As noted above, the writ petition is still pending consideration by the High Court and the impugned order is made as an interim arrangement. 7. Learned Attorney General appearing for the appellants, contended that the relief granted by the High Court though interim in nature, is beyond the ambit of the writ petition itself, apart from being in the nature of a final relief. He contended that there are certain fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent order, therefore, the appellant should not be permitted to go back on such consent order. On this ground alone, he contends that the appeal should be dismissed. He also contended that the sum of ₹ 12.5 crores deposited by AUL was towards the pending dispute in regard to the non payment of inland travel tax, therefore, AUL having agreed to the appropriation of that amount by the customs authorities towards the alleged dues of the respondent towards the above tax, the department was bound to give due credit that too from the date on which the said amount was deposited with the customs authorities. He also contended that from an overall picture of the proceedings that took place in the High Court on several dates, it would be clear that the impugned order was made in the interest of the parties concerned, therefore, it being an order in equity, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order. At any rate, learned counsel contended that in this appeal some important questions arise for consideration which will have to be decided by this Court before any interference with the impugned order which are as follows: 1. Whether or not the sum of ₹ 12.5 crores paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty on such delayed payment. While the respondent contends that certain sums of money deposited by AUL should be appropriated against the sum due from them and the said amount having been deposited in the year 1997 itself by AUL, there is no liability on them to pay any further IATT. This is an issue which was raised before different forums like the assessing authority, Commissioner of Appeals and the Revisional Authority and all the three authorities have held against the respondent holding that the amount deposited by AUL cannot be adjusted towards the tax due from the respondent, which still remains to be the bone of contention in the writ petition, it will be difficult to accept that the appellant would have accepted to treat the deposit made by the AUL as available for adjustment towards the tax due from the respondents even for the purpose of an interim order. In the impugned order it seems the High Court has recognised a settlement between AUL and respondent, but the appellants are not parties to such settlement nor are they willing to associate themselves wit such settlement. If that be so, unless and until the High Court decides the issue whether such settlement is bindin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of taking back their aircraft to their country should be adjusted towards the respondent's dues, has also been negatived by all authorities. In such circumstances, entertaining a petition in its writ jurisdiction to grant a liberal instalment to the respondent to pay the dues that too only a part of the dues, in our opinion, cannot be considered as an interim order made in equity. Therefore, the order of the High Court on the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be termed as an order in equity which ought not to be interfered with by this Court. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that there is serious dispute as to the liability of the respondent to pay this tax because it alone is not the agent of the Union of India in collecting such tax because many a times such tax is collected by the travel agents who themselves may be directly liable to the Government of India to deposit the amount so collected by them. But this is an issue which is not yet decided by the High Court, therefore, we do not think the impugned order is one such order which can be considered as an equitable order with which we should not interfere. 16. Nextly, we notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ights of the third party. 17. Seen from any angle, we think the High Court has erred in granting the impugned relief to the respondent which in our opinion is in the nature of a final relief which on facts and circumstances of this case, without deciding the issues involved in the writ petition, could not have been granted. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The NOC which is said to have been issued provisionally stands revoked. Payment made, if any, by the respondent would be given credit or adjusted in a manner considered appropriate by the High Court in the pending writ petition. 18. We have refrained from expressing any opinion on the submission urged before us by the appellants that in any event the respondents have committed default in payment of instalments as directed by the High Court in its impugned order and, therefore, in terms of the order itself, the order stands vacated. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that in view of the pending dispute between the parties the respondent is suffering irreparable loss therefore we should request the High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition at an early date. This is a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
