9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Equally clear is the provision with regard to the rate of interest. If the payment is delayed by three months beyond 120 days prescribed, it has to be @ 24% per annum simple interest - Admittedly, the rate of interest in the present case, which would apply is @ 24 %. The order impugned also does not in so many words clearly reflect the rate, which has been applied for purposes of calculating the amount, which the petitioner is held entitled to receive. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the rate applied was @ 18%. The order impugned dated 22.08.2017, in so may ways is not totally in accord with the obligation cast upon the respondents in terms of Section 55 of the Act in regard to the determination of the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of such sales. 05. Section 55(4) envisages that in case where a registered dealer entitled to refund under sub-section(3) is not granted refund within the prescribed period, he shall upon making an application in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority be entitled to receive in addition to the refund, simple interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount from the day immediately following the expiry of the prescribed period. It further envisages that in case the delay exceeds three months, the rate of interest would be 24% per annum. 06. It appears that the sales in question were made for the period 2006-07 and an amount of ₹ 57,34,346.21 came to be refunded under the provisions of Section 55 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is thus:- ₹ 14,85,010.76 - for the accounting year 2005-06 ₹ 3,91,554.52 - for the accounting year 2006-07 08. The brief submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire basis for calculation of interest from the date of grant of approval for refund, i.e., dated 30.10.2014, is misconceived and erroneous in law. 09. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, stated that the issue of payment of interest has relevance to the determination of the entitlement of the petitioner to receive such an interest. It is stated that earlier the Assessing Authority had rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of refund, which order was subsequently ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. Admittedly, the rate of interest in the present case, which would apply is @ 24 %. The order impugned also does not in so many words clearly reflect the rate, which has been applied for purposes of calculating the amount, which the petitioner is held entitled to receive. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the rate applied was @ 18%. 14. Considering the aforementioned facts, we have no hesitation to hold that the order impugned dated 22.08.2017, in so may ways is not totally in accord with the obligation cast upon the respondents in terms of Section 55 of the Act in regard to the determination of the amount, as also the rate of interest applicable for payment of interest. Equally erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
