Page 231 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] TANNA ELECTRIC CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CGST, MUMBAI CENTRAL 133
tional tax authorities and necessarily such tax authorities are bound by the law
governing the collection as well as refund of any tax. There is no legal mandate
to direct the tax authority to act beyond the statutory powers binding on them.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) has categorically
held that no claim for refund of any duty shall be entertained except in accord-
ance with the provisions of the statute. Every claim for refund of excise duty can
be made only under and in accordance with Section 11B in the forms provided
by the Act. The only exception is where the provision of the Act where under the
duty has been levied, is found to be unconstitutional for violation of any of the
constitutional limitations.
6. Pursuant to the directions given in Mafatlal Industries case (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anam Electrical (supra) while dispos-
ing the Appeals/Special Leave Petitions has held as under :
“(1) Where a refund application was filed by the manufacturer/purchaser
beyond the period prescribed by the Central Excise Act/Customs Act in
that behalf, such petition must be held to be untenable in law. Even if in
any appeal, suit or writ petition, direction has been given that the refund
application shall be considered with reference to the period of limitation
prescribed in the Central Excise Act/Customs Act - or that the period of
limitation shall be taken as three years - such a direction of the Appellant
Court/Civil Court/High Court shall be deemed to be unsustainable in law
and such direction shall be set aside. The period prescribed by the Central
Excise Act/Customs Act for filing a refund application in the case of “ille-
gal levy” cannot be extended by any Authority or Court.
xxx xxxx xxxx”
7. While interpreting the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Mafatlal Industries (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter
of Jumax Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI; 2003 (157) E.L.T. 252 (Del.) has observed as
under :-
“In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court was
considering the question as to whether a writ petition can be maintained to
claim refund which arises under the Act. The Supreme Court was of the
view that even if the tax is collected by the authorities under the Act by
misinterpreting or misapplying any of the rules, regulations or notifications
or by an erroneous determination of the relevant facts i.e., an erroneous
finding of fact, the same may be called an illegal levy, however, even for re-
fund of the aforesaid amount, a claim has necessarily to be preferred under
and in accordance with the provisions of the respective enactments before
the authorities specified thereunder and within the period of limitation pre-
scribed therein. It was held that no suit was maintainable in that behalf and
while the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 could not be cir-
cumscribed by the provisions of the said enactments, they would certainly
have due regard to the provisions of the said Act and would exercise their
jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. It was held that the
writ petition would be considered and disposed of in the light of and in ac-
cordance with the provisions of Section 11B for the reason that the power
under Article 226 has to be exercised to effectuate the rule of law and not
for abrogating it.’’
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  295