Court allows refund claim despite assessment order requirement

The court found the impugned order insisting on an assessment order before seeking a refund contrary to law. Post-amendment in 2011, Section 27 of the Customs Act allows refund claims for any amount paid. The petitioner was permitted to resubmit the refund application for proper consideration. The court emphasized the assessing officer's crucial role in granting refunds under Section 27(2) and deemed reliance on Section 149 for document amendment irrelevant. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned letter quashed, and the petitioner directed to resubmit the refund application within two weeks for proper assessment.

---

---

Issues:
Claim for refund of excess duty paid due to an error in the invoice.

Analysis:
The petitioner imported goods with an erroneous unit price, resulting in excess duty payment. The correct duty amount was &8377; 30,264, while &8377; 20,85,274 was paid initially. The overseas supplier confirmed the error and a refund of &8377; 20,55,010 was claimed. The refund application was filed, and all necessary documents were submitted for assessment. However, no assessment order had been passed. The impugned order stated that a refund would only arise if the Bill of Entry was lawfully modified or revised. The petitioner argued that Section 27 of the Customs Act allows for a refund claim in such cases.

The respondent relied on a Supreme Court judgment pre-2011, stating that a refund could only be claimed after an order of assessment. However, post-amendment in 2011, Section 27 allows for refund claims for any amount paid or borne by a person. The impugned order was found to be contrary to law as it insisted on an order of assessment being passed before seeking a refund. The petitioner was permitted to re-submit the refund application for proper consideration.

The judgment emphasized that the assessing officer's satisfaction is crucial for granting a refund under Section 27(2). The reliance on Section 149 for document amendment was deemed irrelevant, as the refund application was under Section 27. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned letter, and directed the petitioner to resubmit the refund application within two weeks for proper assessment.

---