TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... than the notified price in an e-auction conducted by the respondent, towards lifting of consignments of coal. After the coal had been lifted, the appellant and other similarly placed companies sought refund of the price paid by them over and above the notified price. 4. However, the prayer for refund was not acceded to, upon which the appellant instituted Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3040 of 2005 before the Jharkhand High Court claiming refund of excess price paid by it over and above the notified price towards e-auction of lifting of consignments of coal by the respondent Company. 5. Likewise, numerous other similarly situated aggrieved coal consumers filed writ petitions before different High Courts across the country. These writ petitions were transferred to this Court as same involved substantial question of general importance. However, the writ petition filed by the appellant was not transferred and remained pending before the Jharkhand High Court. 6. The issue was adjudicated by this Court vide order dated 30th October, 2007 in the case of Somal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Coal India Ltd. & Ors., (Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 100 of 2006). The learned Solicitor General of India made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en themselves." 9. However, the payment was not made despite the above order. Being aggrieved by the non-compliance of the order dated 22nd September, 2008, the appellant filed Cont. Case (Civil) No.247 of 2010 before the High Court, beseeching the Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. The Cont. Case (Civil) No.247 of 2010 was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount collected in excess of notified price together with interest within a period of one month, vide order dated 29th May, 2010. 10. Being aggrieved by non-payment of the amount collected in excess of the notified price along with interest, the appellant filed Cont. Case(Civil) No. 403 of 2011 for the alleged breach of order dated 22nd September, 2008 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3040 of 2005 and order dated 29th May, 2010 passed in Cont. Case(Civil) No. 247 of 2010 by the High Court of Jharkhand. 11. The Cont. Case(Civil) No. 403 of 2011 was dismissed by the High Court of Jharkhand vide order dated 17th March, 2016, which has been assailed in the present appeal. 12. It is admitted that for the period between 12th December, 2005 to 1st Decem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... subsidiaries that in case this Court upholds the challenge made by the petitioners and allows the writ petitions filed by them, the enhanced price of 33 1/3% now to be paid by the petitioners will be refunded to the petitioners within 6 weeks of the judgment of this Court with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of return to the petitioner concerned." 16. Learned senior counsel urged that this Court clearly directed that the petitioner therein would be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the refund amount. However, admittedly, the respondents have refunded the excess amount to the appellant after applying interest @ 3.5% per annum only, i.e., the bank rate, which fact is highlighted from the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 403 of 2011. 17. The averments to this effect made in para nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the said affidavit are extracted hereinbelow:- "11. That thereafter this Contempt application was taken up for hearing and the counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that due to some confusion regarding rate of interest the interest could not be paid however the principal amount has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 22.9.2008 taking into consideration the earlier order passed in the writ petition and also the direction issued by the Supreme Court. For better appreciation, the relevant portions of the order passed in the writ petition, which is the subject matter of this contempt proceeding, are reproduced herein below: "From the records, it appears that the present writ application was filed originally challenging E-auction proposed to be conducted by the respondent BCCL in respect of linked quantity of coal with a prayer for a direction to the respondent to release the price determined during E-auction of the linked quantity of coal in the light of the orders passed in CWJC No. 2750 of 1997(R) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6317 of 1998. Subsequently, on the allegation that the orders were not complied with, petition was filed by the petitioner vide I.A. No. 4 in Com Pet. (C) No. 138 of 2007 in C.A. No. 5324 of 2006. While hearing all the contempt petitions together in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 100 of 2006, the Apex Court had passed an interim order on 30. 10. 2007 in following terms: Let the amount deposited by the Coal India Ltd. be invested on a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gard, the parties shall sit together and decide all the issues relating to refund of the excess amount and the mode of refund of such amount, between themselves. This writ application along with the I.A. No. 4 of 2008 are disposed of with the aforesaid observations." 3. From the order passed by the Supreme Court it is evidently clear that the learned Solicitor General appearing before the Supreme Court, admitted that excess amount was realized by the respondent-Coal Company and, therefore, the said amount in excess of the notified price shall be refunded to them upon verification of documents. In the light of the order passed by the Apex Court, the learned Single Judge directed the petitioner to furnish all documents showing actual payment made to any of the subsidiaries so that the amount in excess of notified price could be refunded. Instead of refunding the said amount, now the respondent-opposite party is taking a different stand that the claim for refund of the amount pertaining to the period between January, 2005 to April, 2008 is not tenable as the said amount i.e., 13.4% was a part of notified price w.e.f. January, 2005. No such stand was taken by the respondent-Coal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al claimants in different High Courts, one of them being filed before the High Court of Calcutta in APO No. 10 of 2011 wherein also, the order of refund was passed in favour of the claimant Company on 4th April, 2012. The said order has been challenged by the respondent Company in SLP(Civil) No. 21888 of 2012 wherein this Court has granted stay vide order dated 9th August, 2012. 23. Thus, as per learned counsel representing the respondents, learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court was justified in rejecting the contempt application vide order dated 17th March, 2016 and denying the relief claimed by the appellant for refund of amount for the third period beginning from 1st January, 2007 till March, 2008 and so also the issue of interest as the lis is sub judice before this Court with a stay operating in favour of the respondent Company in an analogous matter. On these grounds, he implored the Court to reject the appeal filed by the appellant. 24. We have anxiously considered the submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material placed on record. 25. At the outset, we may note that the plea of respondents that on account of pendency of SLP(Civil) No. 21888 of 2012 arisi....