TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner s application for refund along with interest in accordance with law. No contention has been advanced before this Court as to why the petitioner is not entitled to interest on the said amount. In the circumstances, we do not consider it apposite to relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy, in this case. Guilty of inaction for an inordinately long period - HELD THAT:- Once the petitioner had filed the application for seeking refund of the amount along with interest, it was incumbent upon the respondents to either allow or reject the same as per law. The inaction, if any, is largely on the part of the respondents. First of all, the respondents ought to have refunded the amount as it was deposited to avail of the remedy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against the said assessment order before the First Appellate Authority. The said appeal was entertained subject to the petitioner making a pre-deposit of a sum of ₹10,00,000/-. The petitioner complied with the said condition and deposited the said sum on or before 09.03.2000. 3.2 The petitioner prevailed before the First Appellate Authority and by an order dated 12.08.2011, passed by the said Authority, the assessment order dated 31.08.1999 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide afresh. 3.3 In compliance with the order dated 12.08.2011, the AO completed the assessment on 02.04.2012. The operative part of the said assessment order reads as under: . Assessment of the dealer is fra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und but in vain. It once again filed an application dated 14.10.2020, before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking refund of the amount as well as interest thereon. The petitioner followed up the said application with a reminder dated 26.10.2020, seeking refund of the said amount along with interest. 3.6 Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents to process the request for refund, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court [ being W.P.(C) No.8726/2020 captioned M/s Jiwand Singh Sons v. Commissioner Trade Taxes Anr.]. The said petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 06.11.2020 with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner s application for refund of the amount, along with interest in accorda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssary to enter into the aforesaid controversy. In either event, the respondents were liable to refund the said amount to the petitioner at the material time. In the event the petitioner s contention is accepted, that the amount of ₹10,00,000/- was deposited only to avail the right to prefer an appeal, the said amount is required to be refunded forthwith after the petitioner has succeeded in its appeal before the First Appellate Authority, that is, on 12.08.2011. Even if the contentions of the respondents are accepted, that the amount deposited is required to be construed as deposit of tax, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the said amount, in terms of Section 30(4) of the Act, as the same was not refunded within a period of 90 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n preferred against the said decision. As noted above, in the present case, the petitioner had filed the relevant form (DVAT 21) on 18.05.2012 seeking refund of the amount deposited. 9. Notwithstanding, that there is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the amount of ₹10,00,000/-, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the present petition ought to be rejected on two grounds: first, that the petitioner has an alternate remedy; and second, that the petitioner had not taken any action for a period of eight years after it had filed the relevant form for seeking refund of the tax along with interest. 10. This Court does not find any merit in the aforesaid contentions. It is not necessary that in a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In any event, the respondents were required to process the request for refund of tax along with interest pursuant to the petitioner s application (in Form DVAT 21) dated 18.05.2012. Admittedly, the petitioner had once again filed a written representation on 14.10.2020, however, this representation was also not disposed of within a reasonable period and the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. 13. Mr. Rajesh Mahana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that the petitioner would be satisfied if the petitioner is paid interest at the rate specified under Section 30(4) of the Act, from the period commencing from the ninetieth day after the date of application dated 18.05.2012. He states that he is not pressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
