2015 (10) TMI 2089 - HC - Customs

Court orders prompt refund of Rupees 2 Crores, rejects respondent's claim of voluntary deposit

M/s Hindustan Granites Versus The Additional Director General

The court ordered respondent no.1 to promptly refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores to the petitioner, finding no justification for retaining the sum ... Denial of refund claim - Section 28(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- As no demand is made for any amount against the petitioner, I find no justification for continued retention of the amount of Rupees Two Crores. It is unnecessary to examine the submission of the petitioner that Rupees Tw o Crores was collected under threat. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount of Rupees Two Crores is lying in deposit with respondent no.1. As there is no legal justification for continued retention of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 2 crores, I direct respondent no.1 to refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores to the petitioner, expeditiously and in any event, within six weeks. - there is none ed for respondent no.1 to refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores and it shall be treated as deposit towards duty - Petition disposed of. Issues:1. Direction to refund amount collected under threat and without authority of law.Analysis:In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for the refund of Rupees Two Crores, alleging that the amount was collected by the respondents under threat and without legal authority. The respondents acknowledged receiving the amount but contended that it was voluntarily deposited by the petitioner to reduce future interest and penalty, as per Section 28(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents cited the petitioner's own written communication acknowledging the deposit as voluntary, without prejudice to their right to claim a refund if the case favored them.The court noted that despite two years passing, no demand for duty had been made against the petitioner, and the respondents did not claim any outstanding sum from the petitioner. Given the absence of any current obligation on the petitioner, the court found no justification for retaining the amount of Rupees Two Crores. The court disregarded the petitioner's claim of collection under threat and ordered respondent no.1 to refund the amount promptly, within six weeks.Additionally, the court considered the possibility of a show cause notice being issued to the petitioner within the stipulated six weeks. Both parties agreed that if such a notice were issued, the amount could be treated as a deposit towards duty, eliminating the need for an immediate refund. This agreement was recorded, and the court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.