9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending and the same may be disposed of even at this stage without filing of affidavits. 2.. As will appear from the materials on record, a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,62,500 was imposed by the Commercial Tax Officer under section 7(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, in respect of the seizure case. The said amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Tax Rules, 1954, on May 7, 1991. The said authority sat over the matter and it appears that a review application was filed in respect of the order passed by the Board. The said review application was also dismissed on February 10, 1993. 4.. Thereafter, the petitioner made repeated requests to the concerned authority for refund of the penalty amount together with interest, and, ultimately, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount to be refunded, there was a specific time within which the refund was required to be made under rule 30(2) of the aforesaid Rules. Mr. Chakraborty pointed out that under sub-rule (2) of rule 30 when any amount was to be repaid on account of reduction or otherwise, the prescribed authority was required ordinarily within six months from the date of such modification or reduction to serve a not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espective parties and we are of the view that since the penalty amount was retained by the authorities after the revisional application was allowed, without any proper explanation therefor, the petitioner should be paid interest on the said amount on account of the negligence of the respondents. However, since a review petition was filed against the order passed in revision, we think it proper to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
