9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 2 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxInterest on delayed refund of excess amount of tax paid by the petitioner - it is contended that petitioner was only entitled to interest of 3, 68, 871.00 calculated @12% for the period from 04.12.2000 to 01.02.2005 under sub-section (2) of Section 33F of the Act - HELD THAT - On going through the provisions of Section 33F of the Act we are not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner that too at this distant point of time. Claim of the petitioner was duly considered by the respondent and thereafter interest was paid for the delay in paying the tax refund. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the respondent. No case for interference is made out. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Delayed refund of excess tax paid by the petitioner. 2. Calculation and payment of interest on the delayed refund. 3. Interpretation of Section 33F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. 4. Dismissal of the Writ Petition seeking payment of balance interest amount. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a wholesale dealer in liquor and beer, sought a direction for the payment of the balance amount of interest of ?5,59,253.00 due to delayed refund of excess tax paid. The assessing authority had collected excess sales taxes from the petitioner, leading to the refund claim. 2. The petitioner's claim for the interest amount was based on the calculation from the expiry of six months of the appellate order to the High Court order dates. The respondent had already paid interest of ?3,68,871.00, but the petitioner contended that an additional amount was due as per Section 33F of the Act. 3. The respondent, in the counter-affidavit, argued that the petitioner was not entitled to further interest during the pendency of proceedings before the court. The respondent maintained that the interest was correctly calculated and paid as per the provisions of Section 33F of the Act, totaling ?3,68,871.00. 4. Upon considering the arguments and provisions of Section 33F, the court dismissed the Writ Petition. The court found that the respondent had duly considered the petitioner's claim and had already paid the interest for the delay in tax refund. No error or infirmity was found in the respondent's decision, leading to the dismissal of the petition. 5. The court held that at the present stage, there was no merit in granting the petitioner's request for the balance interest amount. The Writ Petition was dismissed, along with any related interim application, and no costs were imposed on either party. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and the actions taken by the respondent in addressing the delayed refund issue.
|
