Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 47 (0.29 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 26 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Sandvik Asia Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors on 27 January, 2006
13. Here in this case, the petitioner approached this Court
and in the petitioner's own writ petition, this Court passed
an order that no further steps in pursuance of Annexure-8
creating liability and demand against the petitioner shall be
taken during the pendency of the writ petition, if the
petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. one crore within four
months from the date of the order. The petitioner not
satisfied with the order dated 30th April, 1986 passed in
Excise Appeal No.70409 of 2022
32
CWJC No. 219/1986R approached Hon'ble Supreme Court
by filing Civil Appeal No. 2796/1986, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court modified the order and permitted the
petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 lacs in two instalments on or
before given dates and permitted the petitioner to furnish
bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lacs. In the above orders of the
High Court and of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no
condition of payment of interest over Rs. 50 lacs which was
deposited by the writ petitioner. Therefore, in case in hand
the Department did not recover the amount of Rs. 50 lacs
from the petitioner but it was deposited by the petitioner in
terms of the order passed by the Court and the Department
accepted the said amount because of the order passed by
this Court and Supreme Court. Thereafter the writ petition
of the petitioner was allowed, vide judgment dated 19th
August, 1988. Union of India, Revenue, challenged the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19th August,
1988, in L.P.A. No. 71/1988R, wherein interim order dated
7th February, 1989, was passed, which we have already
referred above and the Division Bench stayed the judgment
of the learned Single Judge dated 19th August, 1988, with
the condition that the Department will refund the deposited
amount to the petitioner with interest @ 15% per annum, if
the Department fails in L.P.A. So the condition of award of
interest for the first time came into operation by the order
dated 7th February, 1989. Ultimately L.P.A. No. 71/1988R
was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court and
therefore, Revenue was not supposed to repay the
deposited amount and the interest over it in terms of the
interim order and was entitled to recover more amount as
the amount of Rs. l crore was not the total liability of the
writ petitioner as has been admitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the amount of Rs. l crore was not the
total liability. Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal
No. 1460/1990 preferred by the writ petitioner on 22-1-
Section 56 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
U.P. Pollution Control Board And Others vs M/S. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. And ... on 24 January, 2001
(v) It is one thing to say that the High Court has no
power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a
writ of mandamus for making refund of the money
illegally collected. It is yet another thing to say that
such power can be exercised sparingly depending on
Excise Appeal No.70409 of 2022
23
facts and circumstances of each case. For instance,
where the facts are not in dispute, where the
collection of money was without the authority of law
and there was no case of undue enrichment, there is
no good reason to deny a relief of refund to the
citizens. But even in cases where collection of cess,
levy or tax is held to be unconstitutional or invalid,
refund is not an automatic consequence but may be
refused on several grounds depending on facts and
circumstances of a given case. (Vide U.P. Pollution
Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. [(2001) 2
SCC 549])