9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 385 - HC - CustomsSeeking interest on delayed refund of principal amount - HELD THAT - There is no explanation as to why the verification took three years. - There is also no explanation, as to why even after verification, the principal amount was refunded only six years thereafter i.e., on 12.08.2022. It would be both just and fair, if interest is paid to the petitioner, by the respondents, at the rate of 6% (simple) per annum, from 05.12.2013 i.e., after expiry of three months from the date when the petitioner made a request for reassessment. Thus, the interest will run from 05.12.2013 till 12.08.2022, when the principal amount was refunded - the writ petition is disposed off.
Issues:
Outstanding interest payment issue in a writ petition. Analysis: The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon'ble Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju concerning the outstanding interest payment issue in a writ petition. The court noted that although the principal amount had been refunded, the interest remained unpaid, leading to the petitioner seeking interest payment. The court highlighted that the petitioner had requested reassessment in 2013, and the verification process took several years, with the principal amount refunded only in 2022. The court found the delay in verification and refund inexplicable, leading to the decision to award interest to the petitioner at a rate of 6% per annum from December 5, 2013, until August 12, 2022, when the principal amount was refunded. The judgment ordered the respondents to pay the accrued interest to the petitioner within four weeks, disposing of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. This judgment showcases the court's stance on ensuring fairness and justice in cases involving delayed refunds and interest payments. It emphasizes the importance of timely actions by authorities and the accountability of officers involved in processing such matters. The court's decision to award interest to the petitioner serves as a deterrent against undue delays and highlights the significance of honoring legitimate claims promptly. The judgment sets a precedent for addressing similar issues in the future and underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the rights of petitioners seeking rightful dues in a timely manner.
|
