UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHADRA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANA NIYAMIT
EmailAppeal: SLP (C) No. 19708 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10-2-1989 in W.P. No. 3398 of 1984 of the High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10-2-1989 in W.P. No. 3398 of 1984 of the High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore)
Petitioner: UNION OF INDIA
Respondent: BHADRA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANA NIYAMIT
Apeal: SLP (C) No. 19708 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10-2-1989 in W.P. No. 3398 of 1984 of the High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10-2-1989 in W.P. No. 3398 of 1984 of the High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore)
Judges: S.B. Majmudar & M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 31, 1998
Head Note:
REVENUE LAWS
Refund of Duty – Duty paid under protest – Payment can be said to have made only when a letter of protest is delivered to the proper officer – Demand for refund for the period 1-9-1981 to 14-9-1981 held time barred,since application for refund was filed on 17-3-1982. However amount involved being small held it was not a fit case for intervention under Article 136.
Refund of Duty – Duty paid under protest – Payment can be said to have made only when a letter of protest is delivered to the proper officer – Demand for refund for the period 1-9-1981 to 14-9-1981 held time barred,since application for refund was filed on 17-3-1982. However amount involved being small held it was not a fit case for intervention under Article 136.
Cases Reffered:
1. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India JT 1996 (11) SC 283
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is right when he contends relying upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India JT 1996 (11) SC 283, that as per Rule 330(b) ( ?), the payment of duty under protest can be said to have taken place only when a letter of protest was delivered to the proper officer and that date is found by the Assistant Collector to be 15-9-1981. He, therefore, submits that the demand for refund from 1-9-1981 to 14-9-1981 would get time-barred as the application for refund was filed on 17-3-1982. The duty paid for the disputed period amounts to Rs. 37,000 and odd. As the amount involved is too small even though we agree with learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that on the question of law, he is on a stronger footing, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitu-tion of India.
2. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is right when he contends relying upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India JT 1996 (11) SC 283, that as per Rule 330(b) ( ?), the payment of duty under protest can be said to have taken place only when a letter of protest was delivered to the proper officer and that date is found by the Assistant Collector to be 15-9-1981. He, therefore, submits that the demand for refund from 1-9-1981 to 14-9-1981 would get time-barred as the application for refund was filed on 17-3-1982. The duty paid for the disputed period amounts to Rs. 37,000 and odd. As the amount involved is too small even though we agree with learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that on the question of law, he is on a stronger footing, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitu-tion of India.
2. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
