UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus M/S. UPPER GANGES SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 05-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
MIS UPPER GANGES SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES LTD. 
JANUARY 5, 2005 
B 
[S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: 
Interest-Sugar-Rebate on excess of excess production-Granted partly 
C by Assistant Collector-Tribunal allowing the balance claim but not granting 
prayer of assessee for interest thereon-Later, assessee filing application 
claiming interest on the balance amount of rebate-Held, as the Tribunal had 
not granted assessee 's prayer for interest, assessee could not be allowed 
interest by claiming it again at a later date. 
D 
E 
Practice and Procedure: Government litigation-Lacking in proper 
pleadings and prose.::ution--SLP filed by Revenue before Supreme Court-
Relevant documents not filed with paper books-Nor instructions and relevant 
documents supplied to Advocate-on-record---(;ourt noticing these facts in matter 
after matter-Such practice deprecated 
In a claim for rebate on excess of excess production of sugar, the 
appellant-assessee was partly allowed the benefit by the Assistant Collector 
by his order dated 8.1.1976. Ultimately, the Tax Tribunal, by its order 
dated 21. 1.1992, allowed the balance claim. However, the Tax Tribunal 
did not grant the prayer of the assessees for 18% interest on the said 
F balance amount. Later, the assessee filed an application claiming 18% 
interest on the balance amount from 8.1.1976 to 28.1.1992. The claim was 
rejected by the Assistant Collector and the order was affirmed by the 
Collector (Appeals) as also by the Tax Tribunal. But the High Court 
allowed the assessee's writ petition holding that it was entitled to 10% 
G interest. Aggrieved, Revenue filed the present appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I Having already made a prayer and the same not having 
been granted by the Tax Tribunal, it was not open to the assessee to again 
(• 
140 
U.0.1. 1·.UPPER GANGES SUGAR & INDUST!UES LTD. 
141 
.) 
make a claim for interest. 1143-EI 
A 
' '. 
1.2. Besides, the question whether the assessee was entitled to credit 
of the balance amount as claimed, was bona fide agitated. It was only in 
1992 that this question was settled by the Tax Tribunal. This, therefore, 
is not a case where the money had beeli withheld unjustifiably. Thus, even 
B 
presuming, in law interest can be granted on grounds of equity, this is 
not a case where such principles could be applied. 1144-A-BI 
• 
2.1. The application of the assessee for interest was not rejected on 
the ground that the interest had not been granted by the Tribunal. It was 
merely rejected on the ground that there was no provision under the c 
Central Excises and Salt Act for payment of interest. If that be so, then 
in the absence of any provision in the contract or any other statutory 
provision, interest could not have been awarded. Even in the SLP before 
this Court, there is no ground that interest could not have been claimed 
as it had not been granted by the Tribunal. However, this being merely a 
question of law cannot be ignored by this Court. [143-E-H) 
D 
2.2. Further, it has been noticed that in matter after matter, relevant 
documents have not been filed with the paper books by Revenue 
authorities. The Court has been informed that no officer is coming forward 
to give any instructions to the counsel or to supply any documents. Even 
E 
with the stakes being so high there is apparent callousness and negligence 
on the part of the Revenue authorities. It is hoped that this sorry state of 
affairs will get remedied and proper instructions given and documents 
supplied to the Advocates-on-Record and the arguing counsel. 
[142-H; 143-A-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3018of1999. F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.1.1998 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 583 of 1997. 
R. Venkataramani, G. Umapathy, P. Parmeswaran, Ashok Panigrahi G 
and S. Gowthaman for the Appellants. 
Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, K.V. Vishwanathan, Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, 
• 
· Achintya Dvivedi and Sanjeev K for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A 
S.N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against the Judgment of the 
Allahabad High Court dated 16th January 1998. 
Briefly stated the fact> are as follows. 
On 12th October 1974, the Central Government issued Notification No. 
B 145 of 1974 granting certain rebates on sugar. On !st August 1975, the 
Respondents subm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.