Division Bench orders refund citing Article 265, Commissioner's review granted due to lack of opportunity, emphasizing fair hearing.

The Division Bench allowed the appeal, directing the review applicants to refund the amount within two weeks, citing Article 265 of the Constitution. The Commissioner sought a review, arguing lack of opportunity for the review applicants to present their case. The Court found the grievance justified due to procedural irregularity, allowing the review application, recalling the order, and reopening the writ appeal for a fresh hearing. The judgment stressed the importance of providing adequate opportunity for all parties to present their case before a decision is made, in line with legal precedents.

---

---

Issues:
Refund of money collected illegally by the review applicant from the respondent.

Analysis:
The respondent filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 7.53 crores allegedly collected illegally by the review applicant. The respondent claimed that the amount was collected without authority of law during various inspections and physical verifications. The review applicants contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the investigation revealed unlawful availing of input credit and the respondent could not claim a refund of voluntarily paid amounts.

The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with directions for investigation and issuance of a show cause notice by a specified date. The respondent appealed the decision, and a Division Bench allowed the appeal citing Article 265 of the Constitution, stating that no tax can be collected or levied except by authority of law. The Division Bench directed the review applicants to refund the amount within two weeks, with interest if not paid in time.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs sought a review of the order, arguing that the writ appeal was allowed without sufficient opportunity for the review applicants to present their case. The review applicants raised grounds for review, with the main contention being the lack of opportunity to present their case before the appeal was allowed. The Court, referring to a Supreme Court judgment, found the grievance of the review applicants justified due to procedural irregularity and allowed the review application, recalling the order and reopening the writ appeal for fresh hearing.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the review application, recalling the order and reopening the writ appeal for fresh hearing, based on the procedural irregularity highlighted by the review applicants. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing sufficient opportunity for all parties to present their case before a decision is made, as established by legal precedents.

---