Case Law Details
Raj Kamal Cargo Movers Vs Assistant Commissioner (Rajasthan High Court)
Introduction: The Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Raj Kamal Cargo Movers vs. Assistant Commissioner, addressed the nuanced distinction between solvent security and bank guarantee in the context of a refund dispute. This article explores the court’s judgment and the implications it holds for similar cases.
Detailed Analysis: The writ petition was filed seeking a directive for the issuance of a refund due to the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner had initially created demands of Rs. 26,70,276/- and Rs. 34,88,364/- on 30/3/2021 and 28/5/2021, respectively. The petitioner’s appeal resulted in an order on 28/5/2021, setting aside the demands and ordering the refund of Rs. 34,88,354/-.
Upon applying for a refund on 17/5/2022, the matter was referred to higher authorities. The subsequent order on 7/12/2022 directed the petitioner to furnish solvent security for the refund. However, an order dated 21/2/2023 by the Assistant Commissioner demanded a bank guarantee in the form of solvent security before allowing the refund, contrary to the previous directive.
The petitioner contended that this demand for a bank guarantee was beyond the scope of the original order and argued for compliance with the solvent security requirement. The court noted the contradictory nature of the demand, highlighting the fundamental difference between solvent security and a bank guarantee.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
