Allowed

Agro International v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Apr 2017CW/24/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench order allowed a writ petition by directing the quashing of an impugned demand notice dated December 28, 2005, relying on a prior Division Bench judgment that restricted applicable interest rates under Rule 8(3) and Sections 11-BC and 11-AB.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of demand notice; order to refund excess recovered money; compliance with prior judgment directives regarding interest rates.

Agro International Vs Union of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24 / 2006

¶3

Agro International, Prop. Mamta Bohra w/o Ashok Bohra, Through its Authorized Representative, Pramod Pandya S/o Sh. L. Pandya, S-4-69, Mewar Industrial Area, Nr. D.I.C. Office, Udaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Udaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent, Central Excise Range-II, Udaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Anjay Kothari

¶11

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

07/04/2017

¶16

The issue raised in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as 2005 (9) RDD 3736 (Raj) (DB), Lucid Colloids Ltd. Vs. UOI

¶17

& Anr.

¶18

The operative part of said decision reads as under:-

¶19

“Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The part of Rule 8(3) which includes expression “at the rate of two per cent, per month or rupees one thousand per day, whichever is higher” is held to be invalid. Consequently, interest chargeable on delayed payment had to be only at the rate of 2% per month on for that matter 24% per annum as notified by the State Government in

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CW-24/2006]

¶22

terms of the Section 11-BC, which is between the permissible limits in terms of Section 11-AB. Consequently, the demand notices are quashed and interest on delayed payment has to be recomputed only to the extent it is referred to the rate of interest @ 2% per month or 24% per annum under Rule 8(3).”

¶23

Instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of quashing the impugned notice dated December 28, 2005. The respondent would be permitted to raise a demand strictly in compliance with the direction issued in the aforenoted judgment. In case excess money has been recovered, the same shall be refunded. Needful shall be done by the respondent within 8 weeks.

¶24

No costs.

¶25

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.

¶26

sudheer

Agro International v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agro International v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyadarshi Bohra and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

M/S.Gold Leaf Products, Vs Union of India

Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.