Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Facts :
- Petitioner deposited ₹34,67,438 as pre-deposit for filing appeal against stamp duty demand.
- The original demand order was set aside and matter remanded; ultimately no demand survived.
- Despite this, refund was delayed for several years and only principal amount was returned without interest.
- Petitioner filed writ seeking interest on the delayed refund amount.
Court Decision:
- Retention of petitioner’s money after setting aside demand was unauthorised.
- Even in absence of statutory provision, interest is payable based on principles of restitution.
- State cannot retain money without compensating the party for deprivation of its use.
- Non-payment of interest while charging interest from assessee is discriminatory.
Directions:
- Petitioner entitled to simple interest @ 8% per annum.
- Interest payable from date of deposit (15.12.2005) till date of refund (29.05.2014).
- Respondents directed to pay interest within stipulated time.
- General mandamus issued to State to pay interest on refunds in similar cases.
Cases Referred by Court:
- Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
- Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
- Union of India v. Oriental Enterprises
- Secretary, Irrigation Dept. v. G.C. Roy
- Sham Lal Narula v. CIT
- South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P.
- Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT
- Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh
- ONGC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
- Hari Chand v. State of U.P.
Other Case Law
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Whether a court may grant regular or anticipatory bail conditioned upon an accused’s voluntary undertaking to deposit a sum of money, and whether such bail is liable to be cancelled when the accused, after securing release, resiles from that undertaking
BackgroundThe appellant was arrested on 17-8-2023 in registered with the S...
Read MoreBlackberry India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner,
Whether interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 on refund of unutilised CENVAT Credit is to be calculated from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the original refund app
Background & Relevant FactsThe petitioner, Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd., was e...
Read MoreMukesh Kumar Garg vs. Union of India & Others
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a penalty order under Section 74 read with Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, when the petitioner — alleged mastermind of a fake ITC network of 28 firms — claims he is not a taxable person and that penalty,
BACKGROUNDThe Department conducted a detailed investigation and found that the p...
Read More