9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on April 5, 1986 claiming refund of the said amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he approached the STO several times for refund of the amount no action was taken. 2.. In response to the memo dated May 29, 1990 of the S.T.O. opposite party No. 1, the petitioner filed a representation on February 4, 1991 before the said authority stating that though necessary sanction of refund had already been accorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bolangir Range, Bolangir, the matter was pending with him (opposite party No. 1). It further submitted that the refund was being delayed on untenable grounds. The petitioner prayed for issuance of refund order. Ultimately, the STO issued the sanction order along with the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication and scrutiny by the Sales Tax Officer (Inspection). Therefore, claim of interest for delay in disposal of refund application cannot be said to be justified. 4.. It is necessary to quote the statutory provisions of sections 14 and 14-C of the Act, which run as follows: "14. Refunds.-The Commissioner shall, in the prescribed manner, refund to a dealer applying in this behalf any amount of tax, penalty or interest paid by such dealer in excess of the amount due from him under this Act, either by cash payment or by deduction of such excess from the amount of tax, penalty or interest due thereon in respect of any other period: Provided that no claim to refund of any tax, penalty or interest paid under this Act, shall be allowed unles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, and thereafter at the rate of 24 per cent per annum with effect from the date of expiry of the first ninety days till the date of refund. The said provision does not indicate that on any ground delay can be waived or period of granting interest can be deferred if conditions mentioned in section 14 are satisfied. There is no dispute that a dealer, who satisfies the conditions mentioned in section 14 of the Act is entitled to interest under section 14C after lapse of ninety days from the date of receipt of the refund application by the Sales Tax Officer at the rate of 18 per cent per annum for the first ninety days and at the rate of 24 per cent per annum thereafter till the date of refund. It may be pointed out here that the STO in the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et us consider the other ground of objection, i.e., regarding defective application. Section 14-C grants ninety days for payment of refund. As such, the Sales Tax Officer has to point out the defect, if any, within the said period. In case he fails to intimate the person submitting the refund application about the defect, if any in the application within the said period, he cannot, because of his own fault, deny interest. The counter does not indicate what defect existed in the refund application and when such defect was intimated to the dealer, except making a bald statement that defect was rectified on August 22, 1989. Delay in verifying the receipts or obtaining the sanction is an internal matter of the department for which the dealer ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
