Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2015 (5) TMI 945 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClaim of interest on refund with refund - Refund not granted inspite of order of High Court - Levy of sales tax turnover - shame transactions for obtaining loan from bank - Held that - From a cursory reading of Rule 34 it is evident that the said rule mandates that the assessing authority shall give effect to the order of the High Court (Special Tribunal) within three months from the date of communication of the order. It is clear from the above provisions that there appears to be no other option except to comply with the order of the High Court (Special Tribunal) except where the order in issue is challenged in a higher forum and the order has been stayed. - Supreme Court in SCBA - Vs - B.D. Kaushik (2012 (9) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT) while considering the scope of the Court to entertain miscellaneous petitions after delivery of judgment in the main petition held that to do complete and substantial justice to the parties in the proceedings when the miscellaneous petition filed is curative in nature and not used for supplanting substantive law in exercise of inherent powers shall entertain such petitions for implementing the orders of the Court. Power of the Court does not end with the passing of the order but more so in seeing that the order is implemented in letter and spirit howsoever difficult it may be. In case where the orders passed by the Court are not implemented the Court in exercise of the inherent powers should see to it that the orders passed by the Court are implemented. - Insofar as the interest for the delayed payment is concerned Rule 34 mandates that the assessing authority shall refund without interest within three months from the date of communication of the order any excess tax found to have been collected. A reading of Rule 34 makes it abundantly clear that beyond the period of three months from the date of communication of the authorisation (order of the High Court) any delay in refund of excess tax is liable to attract interest and the department is bound to pay the same. In the present case inspite of the order being despatched by this Court on 15.4.2014 almost a year having passed the department has not refunded the amount back to the petitioner. Therefore invoking Rule 34 the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payment beyond the period of three months from the date of communication of the order. Therefore this Court is of the considered view that the department is liable to pay interest on the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated 3.8.2010 as provided under Rule 34 of the Rules. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|