9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of final assessment which, in fact, has been done by the assessing authority. That being the position, the Department cannot take shelter under the plea that amount of security represented the amount deposited towards compounding. The Department is liable to pay the interest under section 29(2) of the Act on the delayed payment of refund of the excess amount. W.P. allowed in part. - Writ Tax No. 963 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2011 - AGRAWAL R.K. AND AMIT STHALEKAR B., JJ. For the Appellant : Aloke Kumar and K. Saxena For the Respondents : U.K. Pandey, Standing Counsel, Rejoinder affidavit filed today be taken on record. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed as tax. The matter was taken up in appeal and ultimately the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Allahabad vide order dated 22nd June, 2005 had fixed the tax liability of the petitioner at ₹ 22,56,000. The petitioner in all had deposited a sum of ₹ 60,45,965. This amount is inclusive of the security deposit of ₹ 17,26,915. The final tax was determined by the Tribunal at ₹ 22,56,000. After adjusting the refund already taken, the petitioner claimed refund of ₹ 24,54,650. When the refund was not being granted the petitioner approached this court by means of the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 3 refunded a sum of ₹ 7,20,000 and a sum of ₹ 17,33,550 had re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow two months' time to the assessing authority to verify the certificate and to refund the amount to the petitioner or to show cause. The assessing authority is further directed to show cause why the interest should not be awarded to the petitioner for the delayed payment. List in the week commencing August 23, 2010. After the order dated May 27, 2010 was passed, the respondents have refunded a sum of ₹ 16,97,660 vide voucher No. 11 dated August 4, 2010. However, on the question of payment of interest no decision has been taken. In the second supplementary affidavit filed by Dr. Mukesh, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 5, Allahabad, a stand has been taken on the question as to whether the amount deposited at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax, which was to be adjusted at the time of final assessment and that exactly had been done by the assessing authority. According to him, there is no justification for denying the payment of interest on delayed refund and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest on delayed refund under section 29(2) of the Act. Sri Pandey on the other hand relied on the averments made in paragraph 4 of the second supplementary counter-affidavit justifying the State's action in not paying the interest. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the amount which the petitioner had deposited as security was not the amount towards compounding but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
