TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companies, from whom amount of tax is due. The amount was sought to be recovered from them in their individual capacity. The order was challenged by them by filing writ petitions before this Court. They were relegated to avail of their remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, which was to be heard on merits, subject to deposit of ₹ one crore by both the brothers. Undisputedly, the petitioner deposited ₹ one crore. Both the appeals preferred by the petitioner and his brother were allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated June 9, 2016 and demand against them was quashed with liberty to the Department to deal with the recovery from the companies. An application for refund was filed by the petitioner on August 25, 2017, which remained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now paid within a period of four weeks along with interest due in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act of 1948. The interest shall be calculated from January, 2018 onwards at the rates specified in Section 29(2) of the Act of 1948. As apparently in the case in hand the delay in grant of refund to the petitioner is patently illegal in view of the order passed by respondent no. 3, the State shall be at liberty to recover the amount of interest to be paid to the petitioner from the officer(s) concerned, as public exchequer should not be burdened on account of illegal action by the officer(s) of the Department - The writ petition is allowed with costs of ₹ 10,000/- to be paid along with the amount of refund. - Writ Tax No. - 167 of 2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Malvika Steel Pvt. Ltd. being debtor of aforesaid companies. In the later companies, the petitioner was a director and shareholder. 3. The recovery notices issued to the petitioner in individual capacity was challenged by him by filing a writ petition being Writ Tax No. 782 of 2007. The same was disposed of in terms of detailed order passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1260 of 2007 titled as 'Sri Anil Rai v. State of U.P. others'. The petitioner was relegated to avail of his remedy of appeal and as a condition for hearing the appeal on merits, a sum of ₹ one crore was directed to be deposited vide order dated October 1, 2007. The petitioner as well as his brother preferred appeals before the Commercial Tax Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner has not been refunded the amount deposited in terms of the direction issued by this Court for hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal. 6. The prayer is for a direction to the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner. The prayer is also for grant of interest in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act of 1948. 7. Learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that after setting aside of the order raising demand against the petitioner by the Tribunal vide order dated June 9, 2016, the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him in terms of the direction issued by this Court for hearing of the appeal on merits. 8. Though after hearing learned counsel for the respondents, we could h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2016 and demand against them was quashed with liberty to the Department to deal with the recovery from the companies. An application for refund was filed by the petitioner on August 25, 2017, which remained pending. A reminder was sent on July 23, 2020 on which the order dated September 17, 2020 was passed, rejecting the claim for refund on the flimsy ground that the Tribunal while accepting the appeal had not directed for refund of the amount. 10. We are not required to deal with that order on merits for the reason that learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted that after the order of demand was set aside by the Tribunal, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the amount deposited as pre-condition for hearing of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondents. From the facts of the present case, what is established is that retention of the amount deposited by the petitioner as a precondition for hearing of appeal on merits would be a direct violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, as the State has no authority to retain the amount after the demand raised was set aside by the Tribunal and the revision against the same was dismissed by this Court. 13. Let the amount of refund due to the petitioner be now paid within a period of four weeks along with interest due in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act of 1948. The interest shall be calculated from January, 2018 onwards at the rates specified in Section 29(2) of the Act of 1948. 14. As apparently in the case in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
