Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Upl Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 28 May, 2021
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
104
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
WP(C) No.1059/2021
CM Nos.4328 & 4329/2021
M/s UPL Ltd. ....Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Gautam Chugh and Mr. J. A Hamal,
Advocates.
V/s
Union of India and Others ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Sr. CGSC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
28.05.2021 CM No.4329/2021
1. By way of this application, the applicant/petitioner is seeking extension of time to deposit requisite court fee, affidavit and other documents etc.
2. For the reasons detailed in this application, the same is allowed. The applicant/petitioner shall deposit the requisite court fee/affidavit etc., with the Registry of this Court within a period of one week from the date of announcement of lifting of lockdown on account of Covid-19 by the Government.
3. Application stands disposed of.
2 WP(C) No.1059/2021,
CM Nos.4328 & 4329/2021 WP(C) No.1059/2021, CM No.4328/2021
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at the Bar that in similar petitions being WP(C) 904 of 2021 and WP(C) 919 of 2021, Division Bench of this Court has already passed interim directions vide order dated 30.04.2021 and 04.05.2021 and the case of the petitioner is also similar and identical and thus prays for the similar relief in this petition as well.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The applications for the petitioner for claiming the benefit of refund under the Scheme Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution ('SVLDR') of the Government of India introduced in the Union Budget 2019 has been rejected vide on-line order dated 30.12.2020.
4. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that under the Notification No.56 of 2002 of Central Excise issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act., 1944 read with Sub Section 3 of Section 3 of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, 100% exemption was permissible to the manufactures from the duty paid provided the statement in this regard is furnished by the 7th of the next month in which the duty is so paid. Thus, the benefit available under the Notification is in regard to the duty paid by way of refund. Therefore, the authorities committed an apparent error of law in rejecting the applications claiming the benefit under the aforesaid scheme on the ground that it involves refund.
3 WP(C) No.1059/2021,
CM Nos.4328 & 4329/2021
5. Shri Jagpaul Singh, learned Sr. CGSC appearing for the respondents submitted that the case involves recovery of excise duty, which has been wrongly refunded to the petitioner.
6. The recovery of the excise duty wrongly refunded is a separate issue or cause of action. Here, in this writ petition, we are only concerned whether the applications of the petitioner under the above scheme ('SVLDR') could have been rejected.
7. Mr. Jagpaul Singh is directed to file counter-affidavit within a period of one month. Two weeks thereafter allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder, if any, thereto.
8. List along with WP(C) No.904/2021 on 06.07.2021.
9. It is made clear that the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notices, if any, shall continue and the continuation and the finalization of the said proceedings would not be treated as final so as to come in the way of the petitioner in getting the present petition decided on merits or to defeat the claim of the petitioner involved in this petition in any manner.
(Javed Iqbal Wani) (Tashi Rabstan)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
28.05.2021
Surinder
SURINDER KUMAR
2021.06.02 11:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document