2018 (3) TMI 538 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI – Rebate – recovery of amount – recovery of amount in view of enactment of transitional provisions under the CGST – Held that: – It was not an order passed merely because the Court was upset with the Respondents or because of the absence of the advocates, but it is clear from the order that it was to impress upon the Authorities that the proceedings before this Court should not be delayed – On account of the fair stand of the Petitioner and Mr. Sridharan, we direct that the amount paid of ₹ 25,000/be returned to the Respondents – petition disposed off. – WRIT PETITION NO. 11403 OF 2016, CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 534 OF 2017 Dated:- 5-3-2018 – S. C. Dharmadhikari And Prakash D. Naik, JJ. Mr. V.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
before 12th March 2018. Mr. Sridharan submits that in the light of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondents and particularly a statement therein, in paragraph No. 10, the issue raised in this Petition is rendered academic. Para 10 of this affidavit-in-reply running pages 459-460 reads as under 10. As mentioned at Para 7 above Revision application filed by Petitioner pertaining to protective demand show cause notices are pending with Revision Authority. If the petitioner succeeds then amount of ₹ 5,07,59,409/included in eight Rebate orders sanctioned by Deputy Commissioner (Rebate) that is already with the Petitioner gets approval of Revision Authority and no further action will be taken by the department for recovery of said a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the issue in this Petition is purely academic and it is rendered infructuous. 4 After having heard both sides and because of the fair suggestion of Mr. Sridharan, we recall our earlier order imposing costs of ₹ 25,000/on the Respondents and which has been duly complied with. It was not an order passed merely because the Court was upset with the Respondents or because of the absence of the advocates, but it is clear from the order that it was to impress upon the Authorities that the proceedings before this Court should not be delayed. 5 By delay, the larger Public Interest suffers and that was not present to the mind of the Authorities and it is only to remind them of the duties and obligations to the public, that costs were imposed.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =