Back
2003(4) Supreme 161
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde, Ashok Bhan & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
M/s. Modiluft Ltd. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4025 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1398 of 2003)
Decided on 7-5-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Prateek Jalan, B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent : A.B. Saharya, Sr. Advocate, Sumant Di, Saif Mahmood and M.A. Chinnaswamy, Advocates.
Held : As a matter of fact, it is the case of the appellants that the respondent having collected the inland air travel tax (IATT) from the passengers as an agent of the Government of India, has not deposited the said amount as required under the statute hence are not only liable to pay the said collected tax to the Govt. of India but also liable to pay interest and penalty on such delayed payment. While the respondent contends that certain sums of money deposited by AUL should be appropriated against the sum due from them and the said amount having been deposited in the year 1997 itself by AUL, there is no liability on them to pay any further IATT. This is an issue which was raised before different forums like the assessing authority, Commissioner of Appeals and the Revisional Authority and all the three authorities have held against the respondent holding that the amount deposited by AUL cannot be adjusted towards the tax due from the respondent, which still remains to be the bone of contention in the writ petition, therefore, it will be difficult to accept that the appellant would have accepted to treat the deposit made by the AUL as available for adjustment towards the tax due from the respondents even for the purpose of an interim order. In the impugned order it seems the High Court has recognised a settlement between AUL and respondents, but the appellants are not parties to such settlement nor are they willing to associate themselves with such settlement. If that be so, unless and until the High Court decides the issue whether such settlement is binding on the appellant or not to seek adjustment of the said amount deposited by AUL, we do not think it was proper for the High Court to have taken note of this deposit by AUL as being in favour of the respondent, while passing the impugned order. (Para 9)
Further held : For an order to be an order in equity, it should be equitable to all parties concerned. We do not think the impugned order has taken into consideration the interest of the Revenue as was expected of the court entertaining an appeal against a money decree. The respondent herein according to the appellant collected the tax from the passengers which was payable to the Union of India as an agent and did not deposit with the authorities concerned, on the contrary obviously used the same for its own use. Its contention before the authorities that there was no default has been rejected by the said authorities. It is their further case that certain amount deposited by the AUL with the customs authorities as a security for the purpose of taking back their aircraft to their country should be adjusted towards the respondent s dues, has also been negatived by all authorities. In such circumstances, entertaining a petition in its writ jurisdiction to grant a liberal instalment to the respondent to pay the dues that too only a part of the dues, in our opinion, cannot be considered as an interim order made in equity. Therefore, the order of the High Court on the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be termed as an order in equity which ought not to be interfered with by this Court. (Para 12)
JUDGMENT
Santosh Hegde, J.-Heard learned counsel.
Leave granted.
2. The Union of India and two others have challenged in this appeal an interim order made by the High Court of Delhi dated 30.7.2002 in C.M. No. 5084/2002 in C.W.P.No. 6611 of 2001. By the said order, while granting Rule the High Court made the impugned ad hoc interim arrangement. By this, the High Court directed the Union of India and other respondents in the writ petition to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the respondent herein subject to the respondent complying with the schedule of payment proposed in the impugned order.
3. Briefly stated, in the schedule of payment, the High Court directed the respondent to pay to the Customs Authorities a sum of Rs. 50 lacs per month for an initial period of 6 months, and thereafter a sum of Rs. 70 lacs per mensem for a further period of 6 months. It also directed the writ petitioner to obtain certain letter of confirmation from M/s. Air UK Leasing Ltd. (AUL) confirming that a sum of Rs. 12.5 crores paid by them could be appropriated towards the dues of the writ petitioner in payment of inland air travel tax.
4. The writ petition before the High Court was filed challenging an order made by the Joint Secretary in a Revision Application, who by the said order had upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had, in turn, upheld the demand made by the Union of India on the respondent for payment of inland air travel tax purportedly collected by the respondent from the passengers along with the interest and penalty statutorily payable for non-deposit of such tax within the time stipulated in the statute.
5. As noted above, the writ petition is still pending consideration by the High Court and the impugned order is made as an interim arrangement.
6. Learned Attorney General appearing for the appellants, contended that the relief granted by the High Court though interim in nature, is beyond the ambit of the writ petition itself, apart from being in the nature of a final relief. He contended that there are certain factual and legal issues which have been decided by the statutory authorities in their quasi-judicial status, and unless and until the said findings are set aside by the High Court, no relief in the nature of interim relief could have been granted by the High Court. For example, he contends that the contention of the respondent that a sum of Rs. 12.5 crores deposited by AUL with the customs authorities for taking away the aircraft from India, could not have been treated as an amount adjustable towards the dues of the respondent. He submits that a contention to the contrary has been rejected by all the statutory authorities, therefore, this is an issue which could only be decided at the stage of final hearing. He also contended that AUL is not a party to the proceedings before the High Court and the so-called settlement which is referred to in the impugned order between AUL and the respondent cannot be taken into consideration by the court in the writ proceedings. Learned Attorney General had a more serious objection in regard to the direction to grant of a NOC which, according to the learned counsel, is a matter outside the pale of the writ petition, because what is in dispute in the writ petition is only the amount payable as inland air travel tax and not the right of the respondent to re-launch its airline operations, the latter being subject to many other conditions under the appropriate laws and by appropriate authorities, who are not parties to the writ petition. At any rate, the learned Attorney General submits that such an interim direction in a writ petition challenging an order in revision is wholly alien to the subject-matter of the writ petition. Learned Attorney General also submits that even assuming that an order of this interim nature can be sustained for any reason, the respondent having defaulted in payment of the instalments fixed by the High Court, this Court should vacate the interim orde
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
