9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from out of his salary. No reasons have been assigned by the learned single Judge as to why fourth respondent in the writ petition was personally liable to pay interest from out of his salary. Therefore, it was necessary for the writ petitioner to implead the appellant in writ appeal No.1430/2019 in his individual capacity so that notice could have been issued to the said officer and he could have been heard by the learned single Judge on the liability to pay interest from his salary. It is directed that specific notice of writ petition ought to have been served to the fourth respondent in the writ petition in his personal capacity before directing him to pay interest from out of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovember 2011 covering the tax periods mentioned in the said order was set aside. The prayer made in the writ petition filed by the seventh respondent was that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the fourth and sixth respondents in the writ petition (the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) (Audit-3) and the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-1) respectively) to refund amount of ₹ 5,90,88,920/- with interest and to release the Bank Guarantee furnished by the seventh respondent. 3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that it is based on a concession made by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for revenue. Paragraph 1 of the impugned order reads thus: Learned counsel for the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent in the writ petition and the appellant in the writ appeal No.1109/2019 was the fourth respondent in the writ petition. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader accepted that the refund along with interest as directed has been paid to the seventh respondent. It is not in dispute that a sum of ₹ 7,69,358/- has been recovered by the State Government from the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1430/2019. However, as of today, no amount has been recovered by the State Government from the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1109/2019. 7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals is firstly that both of them were not made parties to the writ petitions in their individual capacity. Though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to refund the amount and to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from out of his salary. No reasons have been assigned by the learned single Judge as to why fourth respondent in the writ petition was personally liable to pay interest from out of his salary. Therefore, it was necessary for the writ petitioner to implead the appellant in writ appeal No.1430/2019 in his individual capacity so that notice could have been issued to the said officer and he could have been heard by the learned single Judge on the liability to pay interest from his salary. Perusal of the third and last paragraph of the impugned order shows that there was a direction issued to the revenue authority to refund the amount with simple interest at 6% p.a. The dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecific notice of writ petition ought to have been served to the fourth respondent in the writ petition in his personal capacity before directing him to pay interest from out of his salary. As stated earlier, we clarify that the direction issued to refund the amount with simple interest is not against any individual officer and as done rightly by the State, the same will have to be implemented by the State. 12. As far as the appellant in the writ appeal No.1430/2019 (Ramesh Beeranna Nayak) is concerned, the interest amount recovered from him will have to be refunded by the State Government. The said amount will have to be repaid with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date on which it was recovered from the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
