9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as nil - there is no dispute that the petitioner had presented, at the relevant point in time, i.e., before the order was passed by the SOHA on 08.07.2017, C-Forms worth Rs. Rs.3,42,20,991/-, as recorded in the order dated 07.09.2021. Interest in this case, is accorded to the assessee based on the principle that it represents the value concerning money that the assessee could not make use of. The money which was due to the petitioner remained with the respondent/revenue, and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be compensated. The compensation mechanism is provided in the DVAT Act. Besides this, if we were to accept the stand taken by Mr. Vashisht, it would amount to allowing the respondent/revenue to take advantage of the wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n refund was claimed. The return for the first period was filed on 04.05.2015, while the return for the second period was filed on 05.10.2016. 3.2. In the return for the first period, the petitioner had sought refund at the stage of filing of the return, of an amount equivalent to Rs.95,49,002/-. Insofar as the second period is concerned, the petitioner had sought refund of Rs.83,87,359/-. 3.3. The record shows [and qua which there is no dispute] that demands were created by the respondent/revenue, whereby, for both periods, the petitioner obtained a partial refund. The demand for the first period was quantified at Rs.34,35,157/-, while the demand for the second period was quantified at Rs.33,64,957/-. 3.4. Admittedly, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that this error was brought to the notice of the petitioner by the authority vested with the power to grant refund, which led to the petitioner moving SOHA, for carrying out rectification of the order dated 08.07.2017. The application was moved in the form of communication dated 23.08.2021. The AVATO via communication 03.09.2021 addressed to SOHA, affirmed the fact that an error had crept in the order dated 08.07.2017. Based on the aforesaid, a rectification order was passed on 07.09.2021. 7. Mr Sameer Vashisht, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, says that interest, insofar as the second period is concerned, will commence only from the date of the rectification order and not from the date when the SOHA passed the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... run at least from the date when the petitioner filed an application for refund in the prescribed form, i.e., on 17.07.2017. 12. Interest in this case, is accorded to the assessee based on the principle that it represents the value concerning money that the assessee could not make use of. The money which was due to the petitioner remained with the respondent/revenue, and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be compensated. The compensation mechanism is provided in the DVAT Act. Besides this, if we were to accept the stand taken by Mr. Vashisht, it would amount to allowing the respondent/revenue to take advantage of the wrong committed by it. It was for the respondent/revenue to have the error corrected. 12.1. The trigger point of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
