TATA REFRACTORIES LTD. vs. SALES TAX OFFICER
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order dated March 15, 1995, in OJC No. 1200 of 1995, was made in exercise of its constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227. This order, which directed the deposit of an amount and stipulated a refund with 18% interest per annum in case of the appellants' success, was not made under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the respondent State, which benefited from this order by retaining the deposited amount, could not subsequently argue that the refund direction was not binding and that only the provisions of the Act would apply. The Court reasoned that when a deposit is directed under Articles 226/227, the conditions imposed in that order govern the refund. Since the order itself specified 18% interest, the appellants were entitled to this rate from the date of deposit. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were granted the relief of interest at 18% per annum.
What were the facts?
The appellants, Tata Refractories Ltd. & Anr., challenged an interim order of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax before the Orissa High Court. In OJC No. 1200 of 1995, the High Court ordered on March 15, 1995, that if the appellants succeeded in their Second Appeal, the Sales Tax authorities would refund the deposited amount with 18% interest per annum. The appellants subsequently succeeded. However, instead of directly seeking a refund from the respondent State, they filed an application under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The State denied the benefit of 18% interest, contending that only interest permissible under Section 14 of the Act was payable. The appellants approached the High Court again in OJC No. 11998 of 2000, but the High Court took a narrow view, limiting the interest to that under Section 14 of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act would disentitle the appellants from claiming interest payable by virtue of an interim order made by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Assessee's contention: The appellants argued that the High Court's earlier order directing refund with 18% interest, made in its constitutional writ jurisdiction, was binding and not subject to the limitations of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. They contended that the State, having benefited from the deposit, could not deny the stipulated interest. Revenue's contention: The respondent State argued that by filing an application for refund under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the appellants subjected the refund process to the Act's provisions, thereby limiting the interest payable to that prescribed under Section 14 of the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE,J. Heard learned counsel. Leave granted. A short question arises for our consideration whether the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (the Act) would in any manner disentitle the appellants from claiming interest which has become payable by virtue of an interim order made by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The appellants herein had challenged an interim order made by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax in a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature, Orissa, Cuttack in OJC No.1200 of 1995. The High Court in the said writ petition made an order on 15.3.1995 in the following terms : "In the event the petitioner succeeds in the Second Appeal, then the Sales Tax authorities would refund the amount with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The writ application is disposed of." Subsequently the appellant succeeded in the proceedings and the amount directed to be deposited by the High Court as per the abovenoted order became liable to be refunded to the appellant. For reasons better known, instead of asking the respondent State to repay the amount deposited by them, the appellant seems to have filed an application under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (the ’Act’) for refund of the amount in deposit. Taking advantage of this procedure followed by the appellant, the respondent State has denied the appellant the benefit of interest granted by the High Court vide its order referred to hereinabove. Aggrieved by the denial of that part of the interest which was due to them under the orders of the High Court, the appellants again approached the High Court in writ petition in OJC No.11998 of 2000 wherein the High Court taking a very narrow view of the matter held that the appellant is entitled only to the interest that was http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA permissible under Section 14 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before us in this appeal. It is to be noted that the order of the High Court in earlier writ petition namely OJC No.1200 of 1995 was made by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein while directing the appellants to deposit the amount quantified therein, the High Court also issued a direction to the respondent State that it should refund the amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum in the event of the appellants succeeding in the second appeal. This order is definitely not one made under the provisions of the Act. The respondent State which took benefit of the said order and retained the amount deposited by the appellant, cannot now be permitted to say when it comes to refund direction issued by the High Court in its order dated 15.3.1995 will not be binding on it and it is only the provisions of the statute that will bind. As noted above, it is not by invoking the provisions of the Act, the deposit was directed to be made by the High Court, hence, any direction made while making an order under Articles 226 and 227, to deposit any sum of money will be governed by the conditions imposed in the order directing such deposit. On the contrary if any such condition as to the interest had not been made by the High Court while directing the deposit of the amount then it could be said that the refund which may become payable will be governed by the provisions of the State Act. In the instant case, since the very order which directed the deposit itself has directed the refund with 18% interest, we have no doubt in holding the said order as to mean that the refund should be made with interest at the rate of 18% from the date on which the amount was deposited pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 15.3.1995. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed.
More judgments on Section 14
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, SuratWTA 2/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, SuratWTA 1/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Narayan Industries Global Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT Circle 16(1), DelhiITA 8422/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Manpreet Estates LLP, Mumbai vs ACIT, Central Circle 8(3), MumbaiITA 4386/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026