Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.31 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 40 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964
The Division Bench after considering the various decisions inter alia a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhailal Bhai (supra) held that the consequential relief for the refund of illegally collected amount can be granted by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Shiv Shanker Dal Mills Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors. Etc on 9 November, 1979
30. The last but not the least contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury which requires consideration is that the petitioner, although paid the duty, had collected the full amount of such duty from the public. Such excise duty paid by the petitioner is included in the sale price. Thus if now excise duty paid is refunded to the petitioner it will amount to unjust enrichment and/or double payment to the petitioner. If any amount is refundable, it has to be refunded to the customers of the petitioner who purchased the goods from the petitioner. In this connection, several decisions have been relied on by the respondents. The first decision cited by Mr. Roy Chowdhury is in the case of Shiva Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana . In that case the dealers had paid market fees at the increased rate of 3% (raised from the original 2%) under Haryana Act. The excess of 1% over the original rate having been declared ultra vires, [by] the decision of Supreme Court became refundable to the respective dealers from whom they were recovered by the marketing committee concerned. The demand for refund of the excess amount illegally recovered from them not having been complied with they filed writ applications under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to that effect to the marketing committees concerned. The marketing committee contended that although refund of the excess collection might be legally due to the dealers, many of them in turn recovered the excess percentage from the next purchaser. Supreme Court in that case held as follows:-
Ogale Glass Works Ltd. vs The Union Of India on 14 July, 1975
33. The decision in Hindustan Pilkington Glass Works Ltd. (supra) is based on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ogale Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India (supra).
D. Cawasji And Co. Mysore vs The State Of Mysore And Anr on 26 September, 1984
"We are unable to read the decision in Cawasji's case as an authority for the proposition that in every case, where the manufacturer who has paid the excise duty and has passed it on to the consumers and has recovered it, the claim to recover monies from the Government should be rejected."