Police Have No Power To Probe Or File Chargesheet Under PCPNDT Act: Supreme Court Rules Cognizance Bar Absolute 'Cannot Claim Pension Scheme Post-Retirement After Accepting CPF Benefits': Supreme Court Rules Regularisation Doesn't Relate Back To Initial Appointment 'Offence Within Four Corners Of Room Not In Public View': Supreme Court Quashes SCST Act Charges Against School Manager Give A Dog A Bad Name And Hang Him: Supreme Court Quashes UP Gangsters Act Cases; Rules Punishing Mere Status Violates Article 20(1) Child Of Tender Age Easy Prey To Tutoring: Supreme Court Quashes Double Murder Conviction Based On Solitary Child Witness 'State Cannot Supplant PSC's Role By Conducting Exhaustive Eligibility Enquiry': Supreme Court Limits Executive Power In Post-Selection Document Verification Revenue Entry Neither Creates Nor Extinguishes Title: Supreme Court Holds Limitation Against Co-Owner Cannot Run Without Open And Unequivocal Ouster 125 CrPC | Obligation To Maintain Children Cannot Be Divided By Arithmetic Alone': Supreme Court Rules Mother's Income No Ground To Halve Father's Liability 'Scramble For Possession': Supreme Court Directs Appointment Of Advocate Receiver Amid Clash Between Consent Decree Execution & Gujarat Tenancy Act Claims 'Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon': Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convicts After Medical Evidence Flaws Expose 'Eye-Witness' Lies Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Remand Extension Granted Without Notice To Accused, Grants Default Bail 167(2) CRPC No Violation Of Natural Justice If Borrower Fails To Produce Records Or Seek Personal Hearing: Calcutta High Court Upholds Bank's 'Fraud' Account Classification Cannot Exploit Entire Land's FAR For New Tower Once OC Is Issued Without Flat Owners' Consent: Karnataka High Court Mandates TDR Purchase Brethren Assembly Hall Is A 'Church' Under Foreign Liquor Rules, Bar Hotel Cannot Function Within Prohibited Distance: Kerala High Court Fence-Sitters Cannot Claim Arrears After Inordinate Delay, But Entitled To Notional Fixation For Pension: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes At The Foundation Of Institutional Integrity: Punjab And Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Medical PG Admission Fraud Case Foreign Law Degree Taken Directly After School Cannot Be Treated As 'First Degree' For Admission To 3-Year LL.B. In India: Bombay High Court Supreme Court Relaxes 3-Year Bar Practice Rule For Civil Judge Entry, Introduces 1-Year Practice & Clerkship Model

State Authorities Cannot Retain Excess  Tax Amount Without Authority of Law: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra tax authorities to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- to M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. For the year 2011-2012, along with interest. The decision, delivered by Justices K. R. Shriram and Jitendra Jain, underscores the illegality of adjusting refunds against settled dues without proper authority, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory provisions.

The petitioner, M/s. TML Business Services Ltd., sought a refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for the year 2011-2012, which the tax authorities adjusted against the dues for the year 2010-2011. The petitioner had already paid the dues for 2010-2011 under the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalty or Late Fee Act, 2019 (Settlement Scheme), but the authorities proceeded with the adjustment, leading to the current legal dispute.

The court found that the respondents’ adjustment of the refund was illegal and without authority. As stated by Justice Jitendra Jain, “On the date of refund adjustment order i.e., on 23rd May 2019, Petitioner had already availed the benefit of the Settlement Scheme for the year 2010-2011 and made payment, and, therefore, there was no outstanding amount for the year 2010-2011 for making any adjustment of the refund for the year 2011-2012.” The court quashed the refund adjustment order and emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions laid out in the Settlement Scheme and the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (MVAT Rules).

The court ruled that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the refunded amount from 1st June 2019 until the date of payment, as per Rule 88 of the MVAT Rules. Highlighting the principle that state authorities must not retain excess amounts, the judgment noted, “The State authorities cannot retain the excess amount which is not in accordance with law and same would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.”

Justice Jitendra Jain remarked, “The refund adjustment on 23rd May 2019 itself is illegal and consequently, Petitioner is entitled for the refund of Rs.10,69,89,606/-.” He further noted, “It is a settled position that the State authorities cannot retain the excess amount which is not in accordance with law and same would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.”

The Bombay High Court’s judgment reinforces the judiciary’s stance on the unlawful retention of funds by state authorities. By ordering the refund with interest, the court has set a precedent that emphasizes the need for state authorities to act within the bounds of statutory provisions. This decision is expected to have a significant impact on future cases involving tax refunds and adjustments, ensuring greater compliance with legal standards.

 

Date of Decision: 9th July 2024

M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax,

Latest Legal News