Legal Reference Library

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in SHEO PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR vs KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, said that it is common parlance that, in the builder- buyer agreements the terms are framed as favorable and suitable to the builders/ service providers. In our view, these are unconscionable contracts. The builder exercise his right to charge penalty or interest at 18-24% on the delayed payment of installments. Thus, in our view, in the interest of natural justice the consumers at large deserve to receive same interest from opposite parties in cases of fault or deficiency. The commission made this observation while dealing with an appeal against the state commission dismissing their complaints against the builders. The complaint was regarding unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the Kanpur Development Authority in keeping the huge amount for more than a year and refunding it without interest. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/builde...

In a batch of appeals from different states, the Supreme Court ruled that a manufacturing company was not entitled to refund of commercial taxes if benefits under the law are not passed on to the ultimate consumer. Otherwise, there would be unjust enrichment, the court stated while hearing the appeals, led by Commissioner of Central Excise vs Addision & Co. Manufacturers had claimed refunds on taxes paid, invoking discounts such as those on excise and turnover tax. The authorities issued notices asking the firm to show that the duty had not been passed on to buyers.

Delhi High Court, refusing to entertain a writ petition by a Hotel fined with an amount of 41 Lakhs for non-compliance of statutory provisions of Environment Law for a period of more than twenty years, held that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. The petitioner contended that, under the threat of imminent closure and penal actions,it paid  Rs.41 lakhs as condonation fee seeking consent to operate, but they are liable to pay Rs. 46,000/- only as per the previous fee structure. Referring to Suganmal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1740, the Court said that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. The Court noting that for a period of twenty years, neither a “consent to establish” nor a “consent to operate” had been obtained, remarked “To say that the lapse on the part of the petitioner was an innocent non-compliance is to trivialise a statutory provision which has a direct ...

Delhi High Court, refusing to entertain a writ petition by a Hotel fined with an amount of 41 Lakhs for non-compliance of statutory provisions of Environment Law for a period of more than twenty years, held that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. Referring to Suganmal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1740, the Court said that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/writ-petition-solely-praying-refund-money-state-not-maintainable-delhi-hc/

Holding that tax orders are not meant to "add to difficulties" of taxpayers, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the IT department should not "deny" refund to an assessee whose case is being processed under scrutiny and the Assessing Officer will have "discretion" to take a final call on the issue. A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru, on May 11, ordered that a January, 2015 instruction issued by the policy-making body of the tax department--the Central Board of Direct Taxes-- in this regard is "unsustainable in law and it is hereby quashed." The court observed that the said instruction issued by the CBDT curtailed the "discretion of the AO by 'preventing' him from processing the return, where notice has been issued to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act (Income Tax Act)." Section 143 (2) pertains to the procedure of scrutiny where the IT department calls for additional documents and details before fina...

Income Tax — Tax at Source/TDS — Refund - Cases Reported in  2014 SCC Vol. 6 July 14, 2014 Part 3 - When collection is illegal, Revenue is obliged to refund such amount with interest as money so deposited is retained and enjoyed by it. Hence, resident/deductor who had deducted tax at source and deposited the same before remitting amounts payable to non-resident/foreign company is entitled to interest on such refund on par with assessee. No discrimination can be shown between assessee and resident/deductor in payment of interest on refund of tax. Further, such refund attracts interest from date of payment/deposit of the tax since it falls under “in any other case” in S. 244-A(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961. Money received and retained without right, carries with it right to interest. Whenever money received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course and the State is not exempted from payment of interest. Union of In...