Page 50 - GSTL_13th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 2

136 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
has been violated by the respondents in any manner whatsoever. The Central
Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was amended in 1991 to enable the Central Govern-
ment to create a Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) where the money which is not
refundable to the manufacturers, etc. is being credited. Likewise, after the advent
of GST laws, Consumer Welfare Fund has been set up under Section 57 of the
CGST Act, 2017. The Consumer Welfare Fund Rules were framed and notified in
the Gazette of India in 1992, which have been incorporated in Consumer Welfare
Fund Rule 97 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Guidelines for seeking financial assistance
from Consumer Welfare Fund were framed based on the report of a Working
Group set-up in 1993, which was subsequently revised twice, in 2007 and 2014.
Financial assistance from CWF is given to various Institutions including Univer-
sities, Voluntary Consumer Organization (VCOs) and States to promote and pro-
tect the welfare and interests of the consumers, create consumer awareness and
strengthen consumer movement in the country. Consequently, it is not as if the
Government is not cognizant of the issues relating to utilization of the Consumer
Welfare Funds.
9. The Petitioner, nonetheless, has his own ideas and perspective. The
petitioner would like the unutilized and unclaimed amounts lying with Coopera-
tive Banks, Insurance Companies etc being given a similar treatment. Petitioner
has adverted to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection
Rule, 1987 and the Guidelines provisioning for Consumer Protection Councils. It
is urged that with the said Councils should be given the complete control over
the unutilized and unclaimed funds. This, according to him, can be achieved by
amending the Consumer protection Act with a view to re-constitute and re-
construct the Councils under the Act so as to enable them with wider powers
and control. Petitioner also suggests introducing a fresh legislation - ‘Consumer
Welfare Fund Act.’ Firstly, we are unable to comprehend the basis for Petition-
er’s assumption that the funds in the hands of the institutions and the Govern-
ment department are in jeopardy. Secondly, in our view, Banks, Insurances
Companies, Post offices etc are all regulated and governed by their own set of
rules. The Reserve Bank of India and the provisions under the Banking Regula-
tion Act would govern the bank and likewise IRDA would have the control over
the Insurance Companies and that would take care of the unclaimed amounts of
the policy holders. Further, the apprehension of misuse of unclaimed and unpaid
refund as well as amounts lying with the respondents is totally misconceived as
the said sums are duly accounted for in the account books of respondents and
the said accounts are subject to audit.
10. We do not see how Petitioner’s viewpoint should be all-pervading
and such institutions and departments should be forced to be compliant with his
suggestions and ideas. The Petitioner has collated certain facts and figures to im-
press upon us that enormous amounts of Funds are lying in credit with several
departments and wings of the Government. But, all these contentions remain
Petitioner’s ipse dixit and nothing actionable is there in law. Howsoever convinc-
ing and credible may the Petitioner appear, for the court to issue a mandamus to
the Respondents, fundamental question is of Right and corresponding Duty of
the Respondent. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that justice demands the
performance of a duty by the Respondents that they have indeed failed to do and
this cardinal requirement has not been fulfilled.
11. It is also not understood as to how the court can direct refund to
customers/consumers as sought in prayer (c) of the petition, when the amounts
admittedly belong to unidentifiable customers/consumers.
GST LAW TIMES  13th August 2020  50