Unjust Revenue and Unjust Enrichment - Supreme Court Imposes costs
THIS case hardly involves any legal issue but the Supreme Court felt more concerned about the hard luck of the appellant, a manufacturer of PVC Coal Conveyor Belting made from imported Nylon Yarn.
This is a classic case to show to what extent the System can drive a hapless assessee mad - just to deny what is his due!
The Tribunal in 1991 ordered refund of the duty paid under protest by the assessee as no duty was payable. The Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the refund claim is admissible on merit and that there was no unjust enrichment, as the assessee had not passed on the incidence of duty to the buyers. But the Assistant Commissioner imposed an unnecessary condition that the assessee should return the refund if the Supreme Court decides the 'Solar Pesticides' case in favour of the Department. The Solar Pesticides case was in relation to unjust enrichment in cases of captive consumption and was totally irrelevant in the present case. God alone knows why the Assistant Commissioner stipulated that condition. Ultimately Solar Pesticides [] was decided in favour of the Department and so the Revenue wanted its money back.
And the case reached the Supreme Court. All the wisdom of the Supreme Court failed to make it understand in what way Solar Pesticides was applicable in the present case.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
It seems easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for one to do business in India. It is difficult even for God Almighty to pass through the maze of our tax laws and their erudite interpretation by our brilliant officers and more brilliant adjudicators. Why couldn't all the wise men down below understand the simple logic that the Supreme Court understood so easily?
We bring you this Supreme Court order today.