9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :- The petitioner is a contractor. It had entered into a contract with the Northern Railway, Allahabad in respect of which the tax at source was deducted by the Northern Railway, while making payment to the petitioner. As the contracts which were entered into by the petitioner with the Railway authorities was a civil contract, the petitioner made applications under Section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The application filed under Section 7-D of the Act was accepted and the tax at the rate of 1% on the full value of the contract was payable by the petitioner, as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf. We have heard Shri M. Manglik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities had found the amount deposited in excess for the various assessment years and had directed for adjustment of the amount in question against the demand in future years. He submitted that as there was no demand outstanding against the petitioner, it was entitled for refund and as the refund has been delayed, it was also entitled for interest under Section 29 (2) of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the amount deposited by the petitioner in the form of tax deducted at source was being verified and on account of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of refund in terms of Section 29 (2) of the Act." The plea of verification appears to have been taken by the respondents to cover up their deeds of not granting lawful refund within a stipulated period and, therefore, it is not accepted. As the respondents have themselves refunded the entire amount, which was sought to be adjusted against the demand for future years, there is no justification as to why they should not be asked to pay interest also. Moreover, there is no dispute regarding the amount of refund for the next years, as it finds mention in the orders of the authorities itself. In this view of the matter the respondents are directed to pay the amount of interest to be calculated from the date of the order of refund/adjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
