Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Johnsons Lifts P Ltd. Branch Trikuta vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 16 May, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
Reserved on: 28.04.2025
Pronounced on: 16.05.2025
CJ Court
WP(C) No. 1731/2022
M/s Johnsons Lifts P Ltd. Branch Trikuta ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Nagar Jammu
Through: Mr. M. A. Bhat, Advocate
v/s
UT of J&K and ors. .... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
1. The goods of the petitioner-company were seized on two occasions,
i.e. on 04.07.2014 and 27.11.2014, vide seizure-memo Nos. 4452-R,
4453-R, 4454-R, 4455-R and 4456-R each dated 04.07.2014 and
9703-R, 9704-R, 9705-R 9706-R each dated 27.11.2014. Orders dated
07.07.2014 and 26.11.2014 came to be passed by respondent No. 3
under Section 15-A (9) of the J&K GST Act, 1962 (for short, "the
GST Act"). The petitioner deposited Rs. 14,81,760/- and Rs.
11,80,410/- as security for the release of goods. Both these orders
were assailed by the petitioner-company and the Appellate Authority
vide order dated 12.03.2016 set aside the orders passed by the
respondent No. 3 and directed the Assessing Authority to refund the
security deposited by the petitioner. The Assessing Authority assailed
the order dated 12.03.2016 through the medium of two appeals along
with applications seeking condonation of delay before the J&K State
Sales Tax, (Appellate) Tribunal, Jammu and the learned Appellate
Tribunal vide order dated 25.04.2019 dismissed the appeals preferred
by the Assessing Authority, being time-barred. Prior to the passing of
order dated 25.04.2019, the petitioner represented to respondent Nos.
3 & 4 for refund of the security amount of Rs. 26,62,170/- but no
response from the respondents prompted the petitioner to knock at the
doors of this Court through the medium of writ petition bearing OWP
No. 1090/2018, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated
11.02.2019 and the respondent No. 3 was directed to refund the
security amount deposited by the petitioner within a period of two
months, provided the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee to secure
the amount being refunded to it. Despite the order passed by this
Court, the amount was not released in favour of the petitioner-
company, as a result of which, the petitioner filed the Contempt
Petition and faced with the contempt proceedings the security amount
was refunded to the petitioner on 24.09.2019.
2. The grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that though
the respondents have released the security amount, the petitioner was
also entitled to interest on the security amount under the provisions of
Section 10-B of the J&K General Sales Tax, 1962, but the same has
not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have
submitted various representations to the respondents for payment of
interest on the refunded amount but in vain. This is how this petition
has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to pay
interest on the security amount of Rs. 26,62,170/- refunded to the
petitioner by the respondents.
3. The respondents have filed their response stating therein that the writ
petition is not maintainable, as under the provisions of Section 10-B
of the GST Act, the petitioner is not entitled to interest on the amount
of security deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by
the Assessing Authority. It is further stated that interest on funds
envisaged under Section 10-B of the GST Act is restricted only to the
amount of "tax or penalty" paid by the dealer and where the refund is
due to the dealer or any other person on account of "tax or penalty"
found to have been paid in excess in pursuance of order passed under
Section 11, 11-A or 12 of the Act then only the dealer/person becomes
entitled to simple interest @ 18% per annum. Precisely, the stand of
the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled to interest on the
security deposited pursuant to the orders passed by the Assessing
Authority under Section 15-A (9) of the Act.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is evident that the orders passed by the Assessing Authority were set
aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.03.2016. The
operative portion of the said order is extracted as under:
"Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
I am of the firm opinion that the Assessing authority has
erred in law while subjecting the appellant to security
under section 15-A(9) of the Act, therefore, the orders
impugned dated 07.07.2014 and 26.11.2014 passed by the
Assessing Authority, Commercial Taxes Checkpost,
Lakhanpur are set aside and amount of security levied and
realized is directed to be refunded back to the appellant."
6. The aforesaid order was impugned by the Assessing Authority before
the Appellate Tribunal but without any success. On the contrary, the
petitioner remained satisfied with the order passed by the Appellate
Authority and as such, never assailed the same to project its grievance
with regard to the payment of interest on the amount of security
refunded to the petitioner, is concerned.
7. The petitioner was satisfied with the order dated 12.03.2016 passed by
the Appellate Authority till the amount was released in his favour in
the month of September, 2019, and only thereafter the petitioner
started pursuing the respondents for payment of interest.
8. We are of the considered opinion that when the interest was not
directed to be paid to the appellant by the respondents in terms of
order dated 12.03.2016 passed by the appellate authority, the
petitioner ought to have challenged the said order. Having not done
so, and once the order passed by the appellate authority has attained
finality, the petitioner cannot initiate another round of litigation by
submitting a representation for payment of interest on the security
amount refunded to it. If such course of action is permitted, then no
litigation would ever come to an end.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the petitioner
has not been able to make out a case for indulgence by this Court. The
present petition is found to be misconceived, the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
16.05.2025
Karam Chand/Secy.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
