TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be the order made under section 33C of the Act. So, the interest, in our view, would be payable from a date after six months of the order having been passed under section 33C of the Act, withholding the refund. In the present case, the order withholding the interest was passed on February 4, 1998. W.P. allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on ₹ 1,86,811 (Rupees one lakh eighty six thousand eight hundred and eleven only) from August 4, 1998 till January 18, 2006. - Writ Petition No. 720 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2007 - BILAL NAZKI ACTG. C.J. AND NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by BILAL NAZKI ACTG. C.J. The petitioner was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and set aside the orders passed by the revisional authority. The petitioner contends that he was made to pay taxes, which were disputed before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. After the appeals were allowed, he approached the respondent to refund the tax, which he was made to pay during the pendency of the appeal. He was informed that since the appellate authority's order was subject to revision, therefore, the amounts were withheld under section 33C of the Act and claim was not considered. After the Tribunal decided the matter and the Joint Commissioner's order was set aside, the respondent passed an order in form C on May 2, 2005 showing that the petitioner was entitled to refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this factual background, the petitioner has asked for appropriate writ, declaring the action of the respondent in not paying interest on the refund amount, to be illegal. He also sought a direction to the respondent to pay him the interest on the amount of Rs. 1,86,811 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from August 4, 1998 till January 18, 2006. The main contention of the respondent in the counter-affidavit is that the refund became due only after the order was passed by the Tribunal and not after the order was passed by the appellate authority, because, the order passed by the appellate authority was subject to scrutiny by the revisional authority. In view of these pleadings, the only question to be answered by this court is as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue, the assessing or the licensing authority may, with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner, withhold the refund till such time as the Deputy Commissioner may determine. Reading sections 33B and 33C together and applying them to the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that the petitioner had become entitled to refund under section 33B of the Act, but the refund was withheld by the competent authority while exercising its powers under section 33C of the Act. Ultimately, the order in revision went against the assessee and therefore, after the order of revisional authority, he was not entitled to any such refund, but the matter did not rest there and he filed an appeal bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall pay interest at the aforesaid rate on the amount of the refund ultimately determined to be due as a result of the appeal or further proceeding for the period commencing after the expiry of six months from the date of the order referred to in section 33C to the date the refund is granted. Section 33E lays down that if the assessing authority does not grant refund within six months from the date on which the claim for refund was ade, the assessee would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Section 33F(2) lays down that when refund is withheld under the provisions of section 33C, as was done in the present case, the State Government shall pay interest at the aforesaid rate on the amount of refund ultimately d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|