9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied on various communications to justify their stand particularly letter dated 27th October 2009 from the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to the Chief Commissioner of Customs. In this letter, CBEC has advised the Chief Commissioner of Customs to take further action in the matter to expedite the refund of sale proceeds alongwith applicable interest to the agreed party at the earliest and also report on the action taken to be furnished to the Board. It is rather surprising that this letter has been ignored. In the affidavit in reply, the stand taken of respondents is it will be in the interest of justice to first dispose Customs Appeal No. 47 of 2007 and thereafter settle the issue of refund of the sale proceeds and that the refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me or reason. Even this refund order has been passed as stated in the affidavit-in-reply only after the matter was listed at least four times and repeated adjournments were taken by the Revenue and after the Court put pressure on the Revenue. The refund is being given with interest after a substantial lapse of time and, in our view, Petitioner should be entitled to compensation for the inordinate delay. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeevkumar v. Union of India, after following principles and law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited, Pune v. CIT, held that 'it is not the case of interpretation of 132B (4) (b) of the Act or under the said provision, the Courts would restrict obligation and liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue ranging from 12 to 17 years held that, there is no question of the delay being 'justifiable' as is argued and in any event if the revenue takes an erroneous view of the law, that cannot mean that the withholding of monies is 'justifiable' or 'not wrongful'. 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue that, this Act provided for payment of compensation for delayed payment of amounts due to an assessee in a case where these amounts include interest? It is held that, the Act recognizes the principle that a person should only be taxed in accordance with law and hence where excess amounts of tax are collected from an assessee or any amounts are wrongfully withheld from an assessee without authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court in a case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) and directed the revenue to pay compensation/damages to the assessee on the balance sum for the subsequent period at the rate of 9% p.a. In our view, the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in a case of Ajay Gupta (supra) after adverting to the judgment of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) applies to the facts of this case. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in the said judgment. 38. The Delhi High Court in a case of G. L. Jain (supra) after adverting to its earlier judgment in case of Ajay Gupta (supra) and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) has held that there is no justification in refusing to pay co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ordinary sense. 40. In this case, it is not the case of interpretation of section 132B (4) (b) of the Act, 1961 or under the said provision, the Courts would restrict obligation and liability of the revenue to pay interest or compensation upto the date of payment. The question for consideration of this Court raised by the petitioners is whether the respondents can refuse to compensate the petitioners for wrongfully withholding the cash amount of the petitioners though by the assessment order the liabilities of the petitioners were declared as nil beyond the date of assessment order. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Dilip Kumar & Company (supra) thus would not advance the case of the revenue." (emphasis supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted by the Commissionerate on 8.8.2008, it may be ensured that the matter is settled at the earliest avoiding unnecessary delay and protracted litigation."
5. The department is also directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh as cost to petitioner and this amount shall also be paid alongwith the amount mentioned above. Mr. Shroff states the amounts to be credited in the following bank account:
Name of the Account Holder: Nidhi Dalmiya
Bank Name: HDFC Bank.
Account No. 10361000002777
IFSC Code: HDFC0000092
Branch: B-54A, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi - 110048
Ordered accordingly.
6. This order shall be placed in the carrier records of the concerned officers for not giving the refund.
7. Petition disposed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
