Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (8) TMI 1128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .1997. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner became entitled to refund of a sum of Rs. 2,42,405/-. However, the amount was not refunded to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10928 of 1998. 3. Meanwhile, the respondent-Commercial Tax Department wanted to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 20.01.1997. Therefore, the respondent-Commercial Tax Department issued show cause notice dated 04.05.1998 bearing reference SMR No.452/98, seeking to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-IV. 4. Meanwhile, by an order dated 13.02.2003, this Court passed the following order in W.P.No.10928 of 1998 and directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 2,42,40 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondent therein - the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah II Assessment Circle, Chennai. 7. This was challenged by the petitioner directly before this Court in W.P.No.35839 of 2003. This Court by its interim order dated 19.12.2003, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount demanded before the 3rd respondent therein - the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah II Assessment Circle, Chennai, within a period of eight weeks. This was also complied by the petitioner by depositing a sum of Rs. 2,28,928/-. It was stated that the amount deposited was 50% of the tax amount. 8. Meanwhile, W.P.No.35839 of 2003 and the two other connected W.P.Nos.6254 and 9363 of 2004 filed by the petitioner were disposed of by this Court by its .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest. However, on account of the events, which have taken place in the interregnum, 50% excess tax, which was refunded has been paid back by the petitioner to the Department and the remaining 50% is stated to be lying with the petitioner from 29.08.2003. Therefore, it is necessary that the interest should be re-worked taking note of the events, which have taken place, after the order passed by the first appellate authority and the order passed by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of suo motu revision and also the fact that 50% of the amount of excess tax, which was initially refunded, has been paid back by the petitioner to the Department. Further, the respondent- Department cannot deny .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated 28.05.2003, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy this order and then re-compute the interest and intimate the petitioner about the interest, which is payable within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the computation, it will be open to the petitioner to point out discrepancies, if any, within 7 days thereafter and intimate the Department after which, the Department shall pay the interest amount within 30 days thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 11.Ultimately, in compliance with the order of this Court, the 2nd respondent had issued communication dated 30.11.2021 undertaking to refund a sum of Rs. 6,21,550/- under S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... interest is payable and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for interest during the aforesaid period. 13. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for respondents. 14. There is no merits in the contention of the Commercial Tax Department that the petitioner is not entitled to the interest during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court in W.P.No.35839 of 2003. Merely because the order dated 20.01.1997 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was revised by the Joint Commissioner vide order dated 28.05.2003 which was affirmed vide order dated 05.12.2003 pursuant to the show cause notice dated 04.05.1998 would not mean that the petitioner is not entitled to inte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates