TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact remains that the petitioner has also not contested the same and is amenable for the tax liability arrived at therein. Since the petitioner's amount was already with the respondent Department, the imposition of interest under Section 42(3) of the Act at 2% per annum appears to be unreasonable and unwarranted. This writ petition is allowed with a direction to the 3rd respondent to refund a sum of Rs.6,26,404/- together with interest at 2% from the date of 1st July 2017. - W. P. (MD) No. 1113 of 2021. - - - Dated:- 18-3-2022 - MR. C. SARAVANAN, J . For Petitioner : Mr.R.D.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the petitioner. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adjustment of interest under Section 42 (3) of the Act was improper as the respondents should have passed appropriate orders under Rule 14(18) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Rules, 2007. On the other hand, it is submitted that the respondents have calculated interest at 2% under Section 42(3) of the Act and have demanded a balance amount of Rs.1,48,636/- Details Amount in Rs. Tax due as per return on schedule 2 goods 17,91,300 Less : Advance tax as per return Nil Net Tax payable as per return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivision Bench of this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner by way of rejoinder submits that alternate remedy under Section 59 of the said Act will apply only in the case, where there is a suo motu revision under Section 55 of the TNVAT Act and therefore, alternate remedy under Section 59 of the TNVAT Act, is not available. It is submitted that there is no alternate remedy except to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 10. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs.24,19,835/-, pursuant to an order of the Appellate Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
