9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing been granted, it was not open to the Respondents to again make a claim for interest. As the Tribunal had not granted interest, Respondents cannot be allowed interest by claiming it again at a later date. This is not a case where the question, whether they were entitled to the credit of Rs. 15,07,791/-, was free from doubt. This was a question which was bona fide agitated. It is only in 1992 that this question was settled by the Tax Tribunal. This therefore is not a case where the money had been withheld unjustifiably. Thus even presuming, in law interest can be granted on grounds of equity this is not a case where such principles could be applied. If that be so, then in the absence of any provision in the contract or any statutory pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed with consequential reliefs, i.e., that they were to receive a credit in the sum of Rs. 15,07,791/- in their PLA Account. Pursuant to the Order of the Tribunal, the Respondents were given credit in the above mentioned sum. 4.On 1st May 1993, the Respondents filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner claiming interest on the sum of Rs. 15,07,791/- at 18% from 8th January 1976 to 28th January 1992. They made this claim on the ground that they were entitled to compensation for the amount not having been paid to them earlier. This application was rejected by the Assistant Collector on 21st December 1993. The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal of the Respondents by an Order dated 1st August 1994. The Respondents filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arger question whether or not interest can be granted for delayed payments. 7.In this case, in our view, there are two reasons why interest could not have been granted. The Respondents have very fairly handed over to the Court the Appeal filed by them before the Tax Tribunal and the Order dated 28th January 1992. In the Appeal filed by them, the Respondents had prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 8th January 1976 till payment. As already noted above, the Tribunal upheld the contention of the Respondents that they were entitled to credit, but the Tribunal did not grant interest. Having already made a prayer and the same not having been granted, it was not open to the Respondents to again make a claim for inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
