TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dumping duty. There was an investigation on 25.05.2018, SIIB visited petitioner's place of business. During the course of investigation, SIIB collected a sum of Rs. 35,61,455/- from petitioner. Petitioner filed an application for refund on 17.09.2021 on the premise that amounts so collected during the course of investigation has not been validated/translated into lawful collection by issuance of a show cause notice or adjudication. 3.2. It is the case of petitioner that in the absence of the collection made by SIIB during the course of investigation being made lawful, the same would be without authority of law and would not bear colour/ character of duty. 4. It may be relevant to note that there was a show cause notice 05.10.2021, which was issued wherein certain penalties were proposed. Interestingly, even in that show cause notice, no attempt was made to turn the collections made by SIIB during the course of investigation, lawful. 5. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred writ petitions in W.P.Nos.24705 and 24706 of 2021 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.2021, directing respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders with regard to proposal on pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with it the right to interest. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments: i) Union of India through Director of Income Tax vs Tata Chemicals Limited reported in (2014) 6 SCC 335: "38. Providing for payment of interest in case of refund of amounts paid as tax or deemed tax or advance tax is a method now statutorily adopted by fiscal legislation to ensure that the aforesaid amount of tax which has been duly paid in prescribed time and provisions in that behalf form part of the recovery machinery provided in a taxing Statute. Refund due and payable to the assessee is debtowed and payable by the Revenue. The Government, there being no express statutory provision for payment of interest on the refund of excess amount/tax collected by the Revenue, cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors lawful monies with the accrued interest for the period of undue retention of such monies. The State having received the money without right, and having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under like circumstances. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned counsel for the respondents and confined the rate of interest to the prescription made in the statute. The award of interest at a rate in excess of what was prescribed by the statute was only for a period beyond 20 years where the matter was not strictly covered by the statute and as such it would be in the realm of discretion of the Court." iii) Team HR Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2020 (38) G.S.T.L.457 (Del.) : "12. The respondents are reminded of Article 265 of the Constitution of India prohibiting any tax to be levied or collected except by authority of law. The respondents have also not pleaded a case of the petitioner being not entitled to refund, on the ground of the petitioner having passed of the liability to another as illustrated in the Nine Judge Bench‟s judgment of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536. Allowing the respondents to retain the said amount, would also be in violation of Section 72 of the Contract Act, 1872, obliging a person to whom money has been paid by mistake or under coercion, repay the same. The said provision enshrines the principle of unjust enrichment a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reason only that even while issuing notice of the petition, directions for refund were made and which remain uncomplied with. 17. We are unable to find any justification for the respondents to retain the said amount of Rs. 2,38,00,000/-. We have thus enquired from the counsel for the respondents, what should be the rate of interest for which the respondents should be held liable. 18. The counsel for the respondents states that as per the statute, the respondents are liable for interest @ 6% per annum only. 19. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to: (A) Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Pune (2006) 2 SCC 508 where interest @ 9% per annum was awarded; (B) Surinder Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1863 (DB) where interest @ 12% per annum was granted on delayed refund; (C) Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2004 SCC OnLine All 2187 (DB) where interest @ 10% per annum was granted; (D) Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2013 SCC OnLine Guj 1487 (DB) where interest @ 9% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum was granted; and, ....