Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
M/s Anil Automobiles a proprietorship firm through its proprietor Anil Kumar Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
S.A. No. 55 of 2017
Decided on : 23-02-2024
MONEY SUIT - REFUND OF PENALTY - BIHAR FINANCE ACT, 1981, SECTION 31(3) - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, particularly Section 31(3), which pertains to the imposition of penalties for non-compliance with tax regulations. The court interpreted that the imposition of penalty was unjustified as the goods were tax-paid and no road permit was required for their transportation. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to uphold the trial court's decree for refund of the penalty amount along with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, M/s Anil Automobiles, sought a refund of a penalty imposed under the Bihar Finance Act after the Commercial Tax Tribunal ruled that the penalty was unjustified. The penalty was initially imposed for the non-production of a road permit during the transportation of goods, which the appellant contended was not required.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the penalty imposed was not justified as the Commercial Tax Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that no contravention of the Bihar Finance Act occurred. The appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decision was deemed erroneous.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree despite the Commercial Tax Tribunal's ruling that the penalty was unjustified? 2. Whether the appellate court erred in not addressing the issue of limitation regarding the appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellate court's decision was based on conjecture and failed to consider the established fact that the penalty was imposed without justification. The court emphasized the principle of equity, stating that unjust enrichment should be prevented, and the appellant was entitled to a refund of the penalty amount.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the appellate court was set aside, and the trial court's decree for the refund of Rs. 48,432 along with interest at 18% per annum was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
I have heard the arguments of both the parties.
2. The present Second appeal has been preferred by the appellant M/s Anil Automobiles a proprietorship firm through its proprietor Anil Kumar Agrawal challenging the Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2016 signed on 08.12.2016 passed by learned District Judge, II, Dhanbad in Money Appeal No. 02/2012, whereby and whereunder, the learned appellate court has been pleased to allow the said appeal filed by the defendants/respondents and set aside the Judgment and decree passed on 24.09.2011 decree signed on 17.10.2011 passed by learned Sub Judge VI, Dhanbad in Money Suit No. 35 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the money suit of the plaintiff/appellant has been decreed and the defendants/respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,68,301.58 paisa along with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum from 20.11.2006 till realization.
3. The appellant has prayed for confirmation of Judgment and Decree passed by learned trial court setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate court in the aforesaid Money Appeal No. 02 of 2012.
4. Facts giving rise to this appeal in brief is that the plaintiff/appellant is partnership firm carrying on business of automobiles parts at village Nirsa District Dhanbad and is duly registered under Indian Partnership Act. The plaintiff had purchased mobil goods from M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, a Central Government undertaking worth Rs. 1,57,695/-which was dispatched from Bastacola Jharia, Dhanbad to the plaintiff through truck no. BR 17A 4754 dated 19.02.1993. It is alleged that when the said truck along with goods reached near Police Line, Dhanbad, the Commercial Tax Officer of IB stopped the said truck and seized the same along with goods due to non-production of road permit by the driver of the truck in form no. 28B of Bihar Finance Act, 1981.
5. The Commercial Tax Officer, I.B. also issued direction that the driver should appear on 20.02.1993 before the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Dhanbad, (Defendant No. 6) requiring him to explain about the alleged contravention of Bihar Finance Act, who appeared and explained that road permit was not required for transportation of said goods, hence, there was no contravention of the provision of the said Act. In spite of that the defendant no.6 imposed penalty of Rs. 48,432 under Section 31 (3) of Bihar Finance Act which was paid by the plaintiff, whereupon the goods and truck were released.
6. The plaintiff preferred an appeal no. IB/ST/10/1993-94 before the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, IB, Dhanbad, stating interalia that the cash memo issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. shows that sales tax and additional tax were already charged by the said Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, IB has wrongly charged Rs. 48,432 as fine. The said appeal of the plaintiff was allowed vide order dated 01.11.1993 after hearing the parties. Thereafter Suo moto appeal 185/94-95 was initiated before the learned Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna, who after hearing the parties set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner dated 01.11.1993 vide its order dated 26.07.1995 and restored the order dated 20.02.1993 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, commercial Taxes, I.B. Dhanbad.
7. The appellant/plaintiff preferred a revision against the order of learned Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, dated 26.07.1995 before the Hon’ble Commercial Tax Tribunal at Patna which was later on transferred at Ranchi and registered as Revision Petition No. DN 542 of 2001 which was allowed vide order dated 25.11.2003 restoring the order dated 01.11.1993 passed by learned Joint Commissioner (appeal) Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.11.2003 passed by the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal is reproduced
There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the....
Appellants are entitled to 12% interest on delayed rebate claims per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 due to inordinate delay.
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
