2004 (3) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e said amount - whether the petitioner is entitled to any interest on the amount, which remained with the State Government - Admittedly, in this case, when the Act was repealed, the amount was deposited and as such the said deposit was not made under the provisions of the Act – Held that in this case instead of allowing an interest at a particular percentage, a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000 should .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from March 1, 1979, and, thus, liability to pay tax under the said Act came to an end. However, the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount. Later on, according to its own assertion, the petitioner took legal advice and found that it was not liable to deposit the said amount and, accordingly, it prayed for refund of the amount before the authority concerned, which was refunded to the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itled to any interest on the amount, which remained with the State Government for such period. If the amount has been deposited in terms of the statutory provision then in a case of refund under the Act itself provision has been made for refund of the amount with interest. Admittedly, in this case, when the Act was repealed, the amount was deposited and as such the said deposit was not made unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X