9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 953 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRefund of amount in excess of tax due - whether the assessee should make any demand for interest as a pre-condition for interest on admitted refund Held that - Judgment in M/s Bal Govind Bhola Nath Construction Corporation vs. Trade Tax Officer, Sector 1, Allahabad and others 2004 (10) TMI 568 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT followed - Revenue has to itself refund the entire amount, which was sought to be adjusted against the demand for future years and therefore, there was no justification as to why they should not be asked to pay interest also Section 40(4) is applicable to the extent of the amount for which a request for adjustment has been made and has been adjusted from the future liabilities - The amount, which was found refundable and has been refunded, would attract interest for which the Act does not provide any application or any further demand to be made - In view of the Circular issued by the CCT, UP dated 22.5.2004, the interest is payable on the amount, which is found refundable and which in the present case has actually been refunded by the Revenue Writ petition disposed of with directions to Revenue to calculate and pay the interest payable to the petitioner on the amount refunded to him - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Refund of excess tax amount for assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. 2. Insistence on TDS deduction by respondents. 3. Quashing of letter insisting on TDS deduction. 4. Decision on refund application. 5. Payment of interest on the refunded amount. Issue 1: Refund of excess tax amount The petitioner sought a writ for the refund of Rs.1,29,32,903/- found to be deposited in excess for the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The counter affidavit admitted the refundable amounts of Rs.46,76,493/- and Rs.98,29,773/- for the respective years due to double deductions of TDS. The Deputy Commissioner had instructed NHAI to make deductions as per Section 34(1), leading to the excess amounts being refundable. Issue 2: Insistence on TDS deduction The petitioner requested a writ to direct respondents not to insist on TDS deduction for future payments based on an order under the U.P. VAT Act. The respondents had insisted on TDS deductions, leading to a dispute over the correct deduction amounts. Issue 3: Quashing of letter insisting on TDS deduction A writ of certiorari was sought to quash a letter from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jhansi, insisting on TDS deduction contrary to an order passed under Section 34(5) of the U.P. VAT Act. The petitioner argued against the incorrect insistence on TDS deductions by the authorities. Issue 4: Decision on refund application The petitioner requested a writ directing the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Noida, to decide on the refund application dated 11.08.2011. The delay in deciding the refund application was a point of contention in the case. Issue 5: Payment of interest on the refunded amount The petitioner argued for the payment of interest on the refunded amount of Rs.1,04,76,208/-. The petitioner relied on legal provisions and a Division Bench judgment to support the claim for interest on the refunded amount. The court found that interest was payable on the refunded amount without the need for a separate demand for it. The judgment directed the respondents to calculate and pay the interest to the petitioner within 60 days. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the payment of interest on the refunded amount, emphasizing that interest is payable on the amount found refundable and actually refunded by the department.
|
