9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect from November 21, 2001 (annexure P 3), the date when the order was passed by respondent No. 3, till its refund by the respondents; and . As stated in the petition, the petitioner is a Spanish Mercantile Company. During the year 1995-96, it was awarded two distinct and separate contracts by M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi, for supply of electric transmission towers in knocked down condition. The sales tax assessment for the year in question was framed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as the Act ) vide order dated December 18, 1998 and a demand of Rs. 1,91,89,748 was raised against the petitioner towards tax and penalty. Aggrieved aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 10,000 created against the petitioner on account of levy of penalty was also deposited by him. When in spite of requests made by the petitioner, the refund of Rs. 2 lacs, deposited by the petitioner as pre-condition for hearing of appeal, was not granted, the petitioner approached this court by way of present petition. It is admitted that after filing of the present petition in this court, the respondents have granted the refund amount of Rs. 2 lacs by passing an order dated February 3, 2006, copy annexure R-1. However, statutory interest payable to the petitioner on account of delayed issue of refund voucher was not paid. Under these circumstances the only relief pending in the writ petition is with regard to award of statutory in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty has again been imposed. While the petitioner would be entitled to seek its remedy against the order of penalty passed on June 25, 2001 (the learned counsel states that the order had not so far been served on the petitioner), the amount of Rs. 50,000 deposited by the petitioner had remained with the respondents during the period from November 26, 1997 onwards. This had to be refunded. The respondents having failed to do so, the petitioner is entitled to the payment along with interest as admissible under section 12 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The principles laid down in other two judgments, referred to by the petitioner, are that on account of delayed refund of amount, the assessee is entitled to payment of interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ateGeneral appearing for the State did not dispute that the department is liable to pay statutory interest to the petitioner on account of delayed issue of refund voucher but contested the claim to the extent that the petitioner is not entitled to interest from the date the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appeal of the petitioner and remitted the case back but from a date when the assessing authority decided the remand case on May 5, 2003 holding therein that there is no tax liability as it is on that date that the issue of levy of tax was finally settled. The contention of the State counsel though seems to be attractive at first blush but the same is not in conformity with settled principles of law as refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
