9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter pending and the same may be disposed of even at this stage without filing of affidavits. 2.. As will appear from the materials on record, a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,62,500 was imposed by the Commercial Tax Officer under section 7(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, in respect of the seizure case. The said amount was subsequently reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. The petitioner preferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver the matter and it appears that a review application was filed in respect of the order passed by the Board. The said review application was also dismissed on February 10, 1993. 4.. Thereafter, the petitioner made repeated requests to the concerned authority for refund of the penalty amount together with interest, and, ultimately, the amount of penalty was sought to be refunded on May 24, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which the refund was required to be made under rule 30(2) of the aforesaid Rules. Mr. Chakraborty pointed out that under sub-rule (2) of rule 30 when any amount was to be repaid on account of reduction or otherwise, the prescribed authority was required ordinarily within six months from the date of such modification or reduction to serve a notice in form XV along with refund payment for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t since the penalty amount was retained by the authorities after the revisional application was allowed, without any proper explanation therefor, the petitioner should be paid interest on the said amount on account of the negligence of the respondents. However, since a review petition was filed against the order passed in revision, we think it proper to exclude the period between the revisional or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
