9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... few factual details would be necessary. The seventh respondent is the writ petitioner. The writ petition filed by the seventh respondent was based on order at Annexure-E passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mysuru Division in exercise of powers under Section 62(6) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2013 (for short 'the said Act'). By the said order, twelve separate appeals preferred by the seventh respondent for different tax periods were allowed and the demand of tax, penalty and interest made in the reassessment order dated 24th November 2011 covering the tax periods mentioned in the said order was set aside. The prayer made in the writ petition filed by the seventh respondent was that a writ of mandamus be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be paid from out of his salary. A direction was issued to release the Bank Guarantee furnished by the fourth respondent. In the third paragraph, a direction was issued to the revenue authority to refund the amount with simple interest at 6% p.a., on the said sum and also to return the Bank Guarantee to the seventh respondent herein by 30th October 2019. 5. The appellant has filed writ appeal No.1430 of 2019 and 2886 to 2896 of 2019 in his personal capacity. He was impleaded in his official capacity as the sixth respondent in the writ petition and the appellant in the writ appeal No.1109/2019 was the fourth respondent in the writ petition. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader accepted that the refund along with interest as directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ediately following the expiry of the said 35 days until the date of refund. There was no specific concession by the learned Additional Government Advocate that it was the fourth respondent in the writ petition who was liable to pay interest in terms of Section 50 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act (for short 'KVAT Act'). In second paragraph, a direction was issued to the fourth respondent in the writ petition to refund the amount. Further direction was issued to the fourth respondent to refund the amount and to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from out of his salary. No reasons have been assigned by the learned single Judge as to why fourth respondent in the writ petition was personally liable to pay interest from out of his salary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority and therefore, the State was bound by the said direction. Perhaps the State correctly understood the said direction in Paragraph 3 and therefore, made the refund along with 6% interest to the writ petitioner. In any case, the appeal preferred by the State against the impugned order was dismissed. 11. Therefore, in our view, the direction issued in Paragraph 2 of the impugned order will have to be set aside for the reasons recorded above on the ground that specific notice of writ petition ought to have been served to the fourth respondent in the writ petition in his personal capacity before directing him to pay interest from out of his salary. As stated earlier, we clarify that the direction issued to refund the amount with simple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
