Jindal in HC for refund of Rs 1185cr additional levy

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Nov 22 2016 | 5:28 PM IST
Delhi High Court today sought the government's response on Jindal Power Ltd's plea for refund of over Rs 1185 crore paid by it as additional levy for taking part in the coal auction and challenging the provisions of the Coal Mines Act which makes such levy mandatory.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice V Kameswar Rao issued notice to the ministries of Coal and Law and Justice seeking their replies by February 13 next year on Jindal's plea.
In its petition, the company also assailed a 2012-13 report of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to the extent it calculated that there was a net gain of Rs 295 per metric tonne (PMT) of coal to allottees who operated the blocks.
The CAG report had also estimated a financial gain of Rs 1.86 lakh crore to prior private allottees.
Jindal has said it was allocated Gare Palma IV/2 and IV/3 blocks at Raigarh in Chhattisgarh to meet its requirement for running a 1000 mega watt power plant there.
The Supreme Court on September 24, 2014 had cancelled allocation of 214 coal blocks, including those of Jindal.
In its plea, the company has contended that it had paid under protest a total of Rs 1185,20,33,280 as additional levy for participating in the auction process.
It had sought refund of the entire amount claiming that the government's letters demanding payment of the amount was illegal and without any authorisation.
The company contended that the government cannot impose any such levy without first adjudicating the issue and sought that the provisions in the Act which provided for such levy be declared ultra vires of the Constitution.
It opposed the figure of Rs 295 PMT calculated as net gain by CAG, alleging that the report of the auditing body "fails to show any intelligible differentia of coal alloted or nature of mines".
The petition further claims that the CAG audit was carried out without any direction from the President, Governor or Administrator, as required under the law and sought that the report be declared as unlawful and ultra vires.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Nov 22 2016 | 5:28 PM IST

Next Story