United Spirits LTD. (Erstwhile Mcdowell And Co. LTD.), Rep. By Its Officer, Suraj Shenvi Pilgaonkar vs. State Of Goa, Through The Chief Secretary And 4 Ors.

Held

The Court noted that the Respondents had already refunded the excess tax to the Petitioner, rendering the first part of the relief sought in prayer clause (a) moot. The Court then addressed the Petitioner's grievance regarding the non-payment of interest under Section 33(2) of the Goa Value Added Tax, 2005. The Court found that this issue was covered by its previous decision in Writ Petition No. 424 of 2018, pronounced on the same day. Consequently, the Court directed the Respondents to calculate and pay the interest to the Petitioner within twelve weeks, in accordance with the decision in Writ Petition No. 424 of 2018. Regarding prayer clause (b), the Petitioner themselves stated that the relief was no longer surviving as the appeal had been disposed of. The Court did not make any specific finding or direction on this aspect, other than acknowledging the Petitioner's statement.

Facts

The Petitioner, United Spirits Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a refund of excess tax paid and statutory interest thereon, as per an assessment order dated March 27, 2014. The Petitioner also sought compliance with an order from the Appellate Tribunal regarding a refund of Rs. 10,80,715, comprising Rs. 4,47,311 for excess tax collected due to incorrect turnover reporting and Rs. 6,33,404 for Input Tax Credit on restrictive tax invoices. The Respondents have since refunded the excess tax. The Petitioner's remaining grievance pertains to the non-payment of interest under Section 33(2) of the Goa Value Added Tax, 2005. The Petitioner also stated that the relief sought in prayer clause (b) regarding the Appellate Tribunal's order no longer survives as the appeal was disposed of on October 29, 2018.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to statutory interest on the excess tax paid, as per Section 33(2) of the Goa Value Added Tax, 2005? The Petitioner argued for the payment of interest on the excess tax paid. The Respondents did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 2. Whether the relief sought in prayer clause (b) regarding compliance with the Appellate Tribunal's order is still maintainable? The Petitioner stated that this relief no longer survives as the appeal has already been disposed of. The Respondents did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment.