TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to a refund of Rs. 85,175. The assessment order was served on the petitioner in April, 2003, but no refund voucher was issued. Petitioner filed an application on June 2, 2003 for the issuance of refund due to it. When nothing was heard from the respondents, it sent a reminder on July 17, 2003. Since the reminder also failed to evoke any response from the respondents, it filed the present writ petition. 3.. On notice, written statement on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been filed in which it has been pointed out that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority, Rewari, vide order dated December 19, 2003, has set aside the assessment order dated March 26, 2003 and the Assessing Authority has been directed to mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g which period the respondents had withheld the amount which was payable to it on March 26, 2003. In support of this claim, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Saurabh Kumar Bros. v. State of Punjab [2002] 127 STC 556; (2001) 18 PHT 336. 5.. Ms. Ritu Bahri, learned Deputy Advocate-General, Haryana, reiterated the stand taken in the written statement and contended that since the assessment order under which refund had become payable to the petitioner had been set aside by the revisional authority on December 19, 2003 the petitioner was not entitled to any refund. She further contended that in the absence of any refund of principal amount due to the petitioner, there was no question of payment of any interest. 6.. Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000 and, thus, it was contended that no refund of interest was due to the petitioner in that writ petition. This contention was negatived by this Court on the ground that the dealer had become entitled to refund on November 26, 1997 when the penalty had been cancelled and matter remanded. It was further held that the subsequent order dated June 25, 2001 could not impose penalty from a retrospective date. 7.. Respectfully following the decision in the case Saurabh Kumar Bros. [2001] 127 STC 556 (P H); (2001) 18 PHT 336 (P H), we hold that the petitioner is entitled to interest on refund on the amount of Rs. 85,175 from March 26, 2003 to December 18, 2003. The respondents are directed to calculate the same and issue the refund voucher wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
