CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner, search and seizure operation was conducted in the premises of the writ petitioner, at its office of the General Manager (Sales), Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi, the petitioner was served with a notice in the year 1997 directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.59,33,484/, which, according to the Income Tax Department, was of the amount of 12 different parties, against whom there may be some proceedings pending in the Income Tax Department and when the petitioner did not remit this amount, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Varanasi, on 10.3.1998 served a notice of attachment under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 upon the State Bank of India, Ranchi Branch, which was the banker of the petitioner and by that notice, the Bank was directed to send a draft of Rs.59,33,484/from the account of the petitioner. The Bank being bound by the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Varanasi, remitted the amount of Rs.59,33,484/. The petitioner's contention is that subsequently, the petitioner found that in the amount of Rs.59,33,484/, which was the amount of three different parties, namely, (i) M/s. Ram Bachan Prasad, Rohtas, (ii) M/s. Diamond Coal Commission Agent (UP) and (iii) M/s. Sambhu Coal Traders, have also been remitted to the Income Tax Department. The petitioner submitted various letters to the concerned authorities for refund of that amount of Rs.6,80,470.45, which is petitioner's money and it was not related to above 12 parties whose list was enclosed with the notice served by the Department upon the petitioner and the Bank. This prayer was not accepted by the Income Tax Department after long correspondence and vide letter dated 13.9.2002, it was conveyed to the petitioner that there is no provision in Income Tax Act, 1961, to issue refund to the third party; so your claim of refund money is not possible and if at all there is any refund, it will be refunded to the concerned assessee.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar facts and circumstances in W.P (T) No.4294/2001 and W.P (T) No.4038/2001, vide order of the same date, i.e. 20.3.2002, the Income Tax Department was directed to refund the amount in question, which was subjectmatter in those two writ petitions. It is also submitted that the authorities cannot retain petitioner's money, which was remitted by the Bank by mistake to them under impression that this money of Rs.6,80,470.45 is the money of 12 parties against whom order was passed by the Income Tax Department under section 226(3).

(3.) Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that there is no provision in law under which refund could have been given to the petitioner and further it is submitted that if amount was to be refunded, then the refund could have been given to the assessee only. Learned counsel for the Revenue also submitted that order under section 226(3) was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Varanasi and therefore, the petitioner should have approached to that authority but he also, according to the learned counsel for the Revenue, could not have issued refund order, as refund could have been to assessee only.