TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court orders refund of excise duty to disabled petitioner</h1> <h3>VIJAY RAJ KHARIWAL Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed the writ petition filed by a physically handicapped individual seeking a refund of excise ... Cars for handicapped persons Issues:Refund of excise duty for a physically handicapped person purchasing a vehicle.Analysis:The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur addressed the issue of refund of excise duty for a physically handicapped person purchasing a vehicle. The petitioner, a physically handicapped individual, purchased a Maruti Esteem AX car and sought a refund of excise duty based on a certificate indicating his disability. The Department rejected the claim citing reasons related to the timing of disability certification and the specific limb affected. The Court noted the petitioner's entitlement to concession in excise duty as a physically handicapped person and examined the policy framework. The Department's denial of the exemption based on the limb affected was deemed arbitrary and contrary to the policy intended for physically handicapped individuals.The Court highlighted the certificate issued by the Department of Industries confirming the petitioner's physical disability and the entitlement to excise duty concession. It emphasized that the policy should not be misinterpreted or applied arbitrarily, especially when a physically handicapped person purchases a suitable vehicle. The Court criticized the Department's distinction between disabilities in different limbs as unjust and contrary to the policy's spirit. The Department's failure to consider the Ministry's certificate and the clarificatory circular was deemed improper and arbitrary, leading to the unjust denial of the petitioner's legitimate claim for excise duty rebate.Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Department's order denying the refund, and directed the Department to refund the excise duty to the petitioner within a month. While the petitioner could have claimed interest and litigation costs, the Court, considering the circumstances and the Department's assurance of timely payment, refrained from imposing additional costs if the refund was made promptly. However, in case of any delay beyond the specified period, interest at 12% per annum from the date of the refund claim was to be paid to the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
