Case Law Details
Alok Traders Vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Allahabad High Court)
Conclusion: Refund was allowable to assessee alongwith the interest on delayed refund as the officer arbitrarily and illegally withheld the amount of refund despite the order of the first appellate authority dated 30.06.2018 for refund.
Held: Assessee was a registered dealer dealing in tobacco. While certain goods sold by him were being transported through vehicle bearing registration No.GJ06/AX/7576, it was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner and an order under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 was passed demanding tax of Rs.2,35,200/- and penalty of equal amount, total Rs.4,70,400/-, for release of goods. Although assessee was a registered dealer and all particulars relating to him were well mentioned in the accompanying invoice and other documents, yet the aforesaid Assistant Commissioner created at its own a temporary ID and released the goods on deposit of the aforesaid demanded amount by assessee by an account payee bank draft. The appellate authority, allowed the appeal against order demanding tax and penalty and then several refund applications were made along with a copy of the appellate order by assessee but nothing was done by the officer, therefore, assessee had filed writ petition before the High Court and after that refund had been sanctioned by the officer to the assessee and it was paid but without interest. Assessee submitted that the Assistant Commissioner mischievously created temporary I.D. for depositing of the sum of Rs.4,70,400/- made by him pursuant to the order passed by the officer under Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, even though the officer was well aware of the fact that assessee was a registered dealer of Gujarat State and the provisions of IGST Act were applicable and all details relating to assessee were available with him and there was no need to create a temporary I.D. It was held that the officer had committed wrong firstly by not showing the deposit under IGST Act, secondly by showing the deposit by creating temporary ID at its own and thirdly, not informing assessee the password for the temporary ID so created, to enable him to apply in the prescribed form. The officer had herself stated that due to technical glitches, the temporary I.D. of the assessee was not available at the end of proper officer’s login as it was at development stage of GST Portal and hence it was not possible to provide the password to assessee from the proper officer’s end, and it was the effort made at the end of the officer that it became possible to activate the temporary ID at the login of the proper officer to provide password when the entire problem came into knowledge of the respondent No.1 and thereafter, on receiving the password, assessee made online application in RFD-01 on 31.03.2022. Thus, the officer arbitrarily and illegally withheld the amount of refund despite the order of the first appellate authority dated 30.06.2018 for refund. It was well settled that “construction which permits one to take advantage of one’s own wrong or to impair one’s own objections under a Statute should be disregarded. The interpretation should as far as possible be beneficial in the sense that it should suppress the mischief and advance the remedy without doing violence to the language”, vide Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai vs. M. Ambalal, 2010 (260) ELT 487 (para-11). It had also been settled that no one could take advantage of his own wrong vide Union of India vs. Shakti LPG Lt., 2008 (223) ELT 129 (SC) (para-9). Therefore, applying the aforesaid settled principles, the officer could not be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong so as to deny the payment of interest to assessee on delayed refund.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
