TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same position they would have been but for the interim order of the court, unless the order granting interim stay or final order dismissing the proceedings specifies otherwise. On the dismissal of the proceedings or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order. Decided in favor of revenue. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. _2417__OF 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO.15330 OF 2019) - - - Dated:- 25-3-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH For the Petitioner : Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR, Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv., Mr. Vipin singh Bansal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR, Ms. Pragya Singh, Adv., Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv., Mr. Shantwanu Singh, Adv. O R D E R S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. Leave granted. (2) This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Misc. Single No. 2582 of 2003 whereby the High Court has set aside the demand made by the appellants for a sum of Rs.10,08,210.51 towards interest on arrears of exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and adjusted the amount of security of Rs.2,95,200/out of total amount of Rs.9,38,762/and found the respondent was still liable to pay Rs.6,43,562/to the Department. (10) Aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2003, the respondent filed the writ petition, Misc. Single No.2582 of 2003, before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The High Court, vide order dated 01.08.2003, stayed the said recovery proceedings subject to deposit of Rs.2,75,000/by the respondent before the District Excise Officer. (11) The appellants filed counter affidavit in the writ petition on 13.02.2004. On 21.12.2015, the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution. In the year 2017, the respondent deposited the remaining amount of Rs.3,68,562/with the Department. Thus, the amount which was due in 2003 was paid in the year 2017 but the respondent failed to make payment of interest to the Department. The order dated 21.12.2015 was recalled by the High Court on 19.01.2018. (12) Further, on 10.01.2018, the Department issued notice to the respondent for payment of Rs.10,08,210.51 due towards interest. On 10.05.2018 the High Court passed the impugned order holding tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Provided that until a higher rate is prescribed, the rate of interest will be eighteen per cent per annum. (17) It is not disputed that the respondent was liable to pay license fee under Section 36 of the Act for the year 200203, even on surrender of the license. The High Court had granted an interim order restraining the appellants from recovery of the license fee for three months, subject to the respondent depositing a sum of Rs.2,75,000/within a period of six weeks. Admittedly, the writ petition was dismissed on 21.12.2015 for non-prosecution, which was restored later. (18) When the interim order was in force, the recovery of license fee was temporarily suspended. The restraint was only against the Department not to recover the license fee. There was no prohibition for the respondent to deposit the balance of license fee. It is to be stated here that the High Court has not quashed the demand of license fee made by the appellants. There is a difference between stay of operation of an order and quashing of an order which has been explained by this Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. V. Church of South India Trust Association CSI CINOD Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an end with the dismissal of the substantive proceeding and that it is the duty of the court in such a case to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim or9 ders of the court. Any other view would result in the act or order of the court prejudicing a party (Board in this case) for no fault of its and would also mean rewarding a writ petitioner in spite of his failure. We do not think that any such unjust consequence can be countenanced by the courts. As a matter of fact, the contention of the consumers herein, extended logically should mean that even the enhanced rates are also not payable for the period covered by the order of stay because the operation of the very notification revising/enhancing the tariff rates was stayed. Mercifully, no such argument was urged by the appellants. It is ununderstandable how the enhanced rates can be said to be payable but not the late payment surcharge thereon, when both the enhancement and the late payment surcharge are provided by the same notification - the operation of which was stayed. (20) In Rajasthan Housing Board and Others v. Krishna Kumari, (2005) 13 SCC 151 this Court observed that Order 39 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s gained by the interim order of the court, so as to wipe out the effect of the interim order passed which, in view of the reasoning adopted by the court at the stage of final decision, the court earlier would not or ought not to have passed. There is nothing wrong in an effort being made to restore the parties to the same position in which they would have been if the interim order would not have existed. (22) In Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited v. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 216 the appellant therein had challenged the revised tariff rates imposed by the respondent therein and obtained an interim order of stay against collection of the disputed amounts. The High Court subsequently upheld upward revision of tariff. Thereafter, the respondent therein raised a demand for additional charges/interest on outstanding amounts from the date of tariff revision and the High Court upheld such demand holding that there was no subsisting relief once the demand was upheld. This Court further held that the principle of restitution entitles the successful party to be restored back to the position it would hold had there been no order/judgment ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ser will end up with a financial benefit by resorting to unjust litigation and the winner will end up as the loser financially for no fault of his. Be that as it may. (24) From the above discussion, it is clear that imposition of a stay on the operation of an order means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of passing of the stay order. However, it does not mean that the stayed order is wiped out from the existence, unless it is quashed. Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order. In other words, the interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of the proceedings. In such a situation, it is the duty of the Court to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim order of the court, unless the order granting interim stay or final order dismissing the proceedings specifies otherwise. On the dismissal of the proceedings or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order. (25) Coming to the facts of the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
