9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner is a contractor. It had entered into a contract with the Northern Railway, Allahabad in respect of which the tax at source was deducted by the Northern Railway, while making payment to the petitioner. As the contracts which were entered into by the petitioner with the Railway authorities was a civil contract, the petitioner made applications under Section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The application filed under Section 7-D of the Act was accepted and the tax at the rate of 1% on the full value of the contract was payable by the petitioner, as the amount of tax which has been deducted at source was far in exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been heard finally and being disposed of in accordance with the Rules of the Court at the admission stage itself. We have heard Shri M. Manglik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities had found the amount deposited in excess for the various assessment years and had directed for adjustment of the amount in question against the demand in future years. He submitted that as there was no demand outstanding against the petitioner, it was entitled for refund and as the refund has been delayed, it was also entitled for interest under Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 29 (2) of the act. There is no justification on the part of the respondents in not paying the interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of order till date of refund in terms of Section 29 (2) of the Act. The plea of verification appears to have been taken by the respondents to cover up their deeds of not granting lawful refund within a stipulated period and, therefore, it is not accepted. As the respondents have themselves refunded the entire amount, which was sought to be adjusted against the demand for future years, there is no justification as to why they should not be asked to pay interest also. Moreover, there is no dispute regarding the amount of refund for the next years, as it finds mention in the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
