SANITA ARORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B. The present case is a classic illustration where a person is made to run from pillar to post for over nine long years to get refund of the excess excise duty paid on the purchase of a car, required to be used solely as taxi. To indicate and appreciate the petitioner's agony, it would be necessary to state the facts in a little greater detail.

(2.) The petitioner booked one Maruti Omni Van (taxi) by depositing a sum of Rs.1,57,340.00 on 27/12/1991 with M/s.Sikand & Co., respondent No.4 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the dealer'). The car was delivered on 29/2/1992 along with an invoice for Rs.1,20,348.00 towards the price of the said vehicle. Since the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.1,57,340.00, a sum of Rs.36,992.00, towards excess excise duty recovered from the petitioner at the time of booking of the vehicle, was required to be refunded to her. The said amount became refundable on account of lesser rate of excise duty payable on a car registered for use solely as a taxi, for which some documents were required to be submitted by the manufacturer to the Excise authorities. Pursuant to a letter dated 26/3/1992, received from the dealer, the petitioner claims to have submitted the requisite documents. Since the petitioner did not receive any communication from the dealer or the manufacturer of the vehicle namely, M/s.Maruti Udyog Limited (for short 'Maruti'), respondent No.3 herein, she wrote various letters to them for the refund of the excess excise duty deposited by her, but in vain.

(3.) Having failed to get any response from Maruti or the dealer, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Monopolies, and Restricted Trade Practices Commission (for short 'the Commission') praying for a direction to the dealer to refund the excise duty. On notice being issued by the Commission to the dealer, the dealer vide their letters dated 17/8/1993 and 11/9/1993 asked the petitioner to furnish certain additional documents to enable them to refund the excise duty. These were submitted on 18/9/1993. In their reply to the notice issued by the Commission, the dealer stated that the petitioner was legally entitled to interest for the period from the date of deposit of money to the date of delivery, which it was prepared to pay. However, for some default on the part of the petitioner, her complaint before the Commission was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, in view of the undertaking given by the dealer before the Commission, a sum of Rs.9,254.00 was paid by the dealer to the petitioner by way of interest. But the excess amount of excise duty was not refunded. The petitioner's applications before the Commission for revival of the complaint were dismissed with the observation that she was free to take recourse to appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. It may be relevant to note here that in its reply before the Commission, the dealer had stated that the requisite papers furnished by the petitioner were forwarded to the Excise authorities through Maruti and the excess excise duty would be refunded to her as and when the Excise authorities grant necessary approval for the same.