AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed for return of Rs. 2.78 crores along with interest. It is alleged that this amount was coercively collected in January, 2010, when the Director of the petitioner Manu Jain was arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon decision of the Gujarat High Court in case of Abhishek Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), and decision of the Delhi High Court in Voltas Limited Vs. The Union of India and Others, .
In the present case, we notice that the petitioner and Manu Jain had earlier filed Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 2447/2010 and 2448/2010. We note that similar prayer was made by the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2448/2010. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 4th August, 2011. Copy of this order has not been filed along with the present writ petition. It is stated at the Bar that an appeal has been preferred against the said order before the Supreme Court and the same is pending.
We may notice that thereafter the petitioner had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7243/2011, which was allowed in view of the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue that the assessment order/order-in-original dated 18th August, 2011 may be treated as cancelled. The adjudicatory proceedings are pending before the authority.
The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case of Abhishek Fashions Private Limited (supra) it was held that certain recoveries had been made in the absence of statutory provisions. In this connection, we may note that in the present case the petitioner was arrested and it appears that certain payments etc. were made. It is alleged that the said payments were made under coercion and duress as the petitioner was arrested. These are aspects, which cannot be examined at this stage. Further, as noticed above, the assessment proceedings are pending.
In Voltas Limited case (supra) a pre-deposit was made pending the appeal. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal and, therefore, in the said circumstances it was directed that the pre-deposit amount should be refunded. As noticed above, in the present case the issue in question was raised earlier in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2448/2010 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 4th August, 2011. We do not think the petitioner should be permitted and allowed to raise the plea once again. The unit where the petitioner undertakes and carries on business activities is located in Faridabad. The petitioner is also registered with the Commissionerate in Faridabad. The proceedings are pending at Faridabad.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.