Eastman Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court disposed of petitions concerning an issue covered by the Gujarat High Court’s judgment in Sal Steels Limited. Counsels for the petitioner sought a refund, but the Revenue noted that the Supreme Court had issued notice in an SLP challenging the Sal Steels ruling, without granting a stay.
The Revenue also pointed out that the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts had taken a contrary view. Due to the pending SLP, the Revenue requested that any refund be deferred until the Supreme Court’s decision. Petitioners agreed, and the Court reserved the petitioners’ right to claim a refund based on the outcome of the SLP.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Counsels state that the issue in these matters is covered by a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Sal Steels Limited v. Union of India1.
2. Counsels also state that notice has been issued by the Apex Court in an SLP, being SLP (Civil Appeal) Diary No.27016/2020, filed by the Revenue impugning Sal Steels Limited (supra) and there is no stay.
3. Learned counsels sought refund of the amounts paid.
4. In response, learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court in Pace Setters Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and others2 and M/s.R.C.Infra Digital Solutions Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Ashish Kumar v. Union of India and others3, respectively, have taken a view, contrary to Sal Steels Limited (supra).
