2001 (9) TMI 1096 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for interest under section 33-F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1954.
2. Interpretation of Section 24-A and its applicability in refund cases.
3. Entitlement to interest under sections 33-F and 33-B based on tribunal and appellate orders.
4. Obligation of the State Government to pay interest on delayed refunds.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a dealer, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the Commercial Tax Officer's refusal to pay Rs. 11,19,165 towards interest under section 33-F of the APGST Act as illegal and arbitrary. The dispute arose from the denial of interest by the department, citing the assessing officer's three-year period to give effect to tribunal and appellate orders. The court rejected this contention, emphasizing that Section 24-A does not deal with refunds and granting a maximum of three years for consequential orders. The entitlement to interest under section 33-F is triggered when the assessing authority fails to grant a refund within six months from the tribunal or appellate order, making the State Government liable to pay interest at 12% per annum.

2. Section 24-A provides a time limit for assessing authorities to pass consequential or reassessment orders following tribunal or court directions. In contrast, sections 33-F and 33-B govern the entitlement to interest on refunds due to an assessee based on tribunal or appellate orders. The court clarified that the petitioner's right to seek a refund stems from final orders by the tribunal and appellate deputy commissioner, not the subsequent actions of the assessing authority. The obligation to pay interest arises when the assessing authority delays refunds beyond six months from the tribunal or appellate order, as mandated by section 33-F.

3. The court highlighted that the petitioner's claim for interest under section 33-F is independent of the assessing authority's actions post-tribunal or appellate orders. The assessing authority's role is executive in nature, with no discretion to modify tax liabilities determined by the tribunal or appellate deputy commissioner. As the refund became due to the petitioner upon the final orders by the tribunal and appellate deputy commissioner, the State Government is duty-bound to pay interest from the expiry of the six-month period following those orders. The entitlement to interest under section 33-F is not contingent on the assessing authority's actions but directly linked to the delay in refunding amounts due to the petitioner.

4. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to pay simple interest at 12% per annum on the refund due and paid to the petitioner from the dates following the expiry of the six-month period from the tribunal and appellate orders. The State Government was mandated to make the interest payments within one month of the court's order, with no additional costs imposed. The ruling clarified the statutory obligation of the State Government to pay interest on delayed refunds as per the provisions of the APGST Act, safeguarding the petitioner's rights in seeking timely compensation for withheld amounts.