M/S. Sree Laxmi Constructions vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M, S. RAMACHANDRA RAO THE HoN,BLE Snrur$r?cr T. VINoD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO:13208 OF 2020 Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction declaring the inaction of the Respondents in refunding tax along with applicable interest for the Assessment year 2003-04 as per orders of the Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hyderabad in T.A.No. 2412020 dated 16-1 1-20"18 and consequential order of the lst respondentiated 17-05-2019 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of AP GST Act, 1957
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WP.No.132o8 of 2O2O ORDER: @er Sri Justice M.S.Ramachand.ra Rao) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking refund of A.P. G.S.T. for the assessment year 2O03-O4 under the A.P. G.S.T. Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') as per order dt. 16.11.2018 in TA.No.24 of 2O2O passed by the Telangana VAT Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and questioning the consequential order dt. 17.05.2019 of the lst respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has made severa-l representations including representations dt. 05. 02.2O 19 and 27 .O2.20 1 9 before the 1"t respondent and also before the Dy. Commissioner (ST) STU, Mahaboobnagar and with great difficulty, the 1"t respondent passed consequentia-l order on 17.05.2019 determining the excess tax as Rs. 11,43,886/- which ought to be refunded to the petitioner, but has not yet paid the said amount to the petitioner.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had already given an Indemnity Bond and letter exercising option for \ /
refund through bank account to enable the respondents to process refund.
It is not in dispute that on L2..O.2O2O, after the Writ petition was filed, the respondents remitted the refund amount to the petitioner, but did not pay any interest on the refund which the petitioner claims to be entitied to as per Section 33_F of the Act.
As per Section 33_B read with Section 33_F of the APGST Act, 19S7, petitioner contends that it is entitled to the refund with interest but the 1"t respondent in the proceedings dt.1Z.OS.2O19 has calculated the refund only without mentioning the interest.
An aJfidavit has been filed by the l"t respondent admitting that the petitioner is entitred to refund of Rs. 11,43,886/- for the assessment year 2OO3_O4 under the APGST Act, 1957, that the proced.ure for refund and payment of interest on the delayed refund is governed by Section 33 and Section 33-F of the ApGST Act, 1957, and that in the event of delay beyond 6 months, interest [i 12o/o per annum for the delayed period is payable. He further contended that a notice dt. 1S.04.202 1 was served on the petitioner by the Department with regard to calculation of the amount of interest inviting objections,
/ that on 2O.O4'2O21 petitioner has filed such objections' and it is stated that the 1"t respondent would decide payment of interest on the delayed refund in seven days'
Section 33-B of the Act states as follows : "33'I.. Refund on appeat' etc'' - W?ere as a result of ang ord-er passed in oppeal or other proceeding under this Act' of any amount becomes due to the assessee or , the assessin g or licensing authoitA shatt refund the amouttt to the assess ee or licensee tuithout hts hauing to madeanyclaiminthatbehatf'oradjustorapplg'such amount as Prouided in Section 33'
Section 33-F of the Act states as follows : "33-F. Interest on refund where no clalm need be made :- (1) Wlere a refund is due to the assessee or licensee in pursuance of an order referred to in Section 33-B and the assessing or the licensing authority does not grant the refund uithin a peiod of six montls from the date of such order, the State Gouemment shall paA to the assessee or the licensee simple interest at tllelue percent per annum on the amount of refund due from the date immediatetg follouing the expiry of the penod of st-r months aforesoid to the date on uhich the refund is granted. refund licensee 1 ) ) 1 (2)
Admittedly, the refund arnount was not paid to the petitioner within six months from the date 16'11.2018 when the Tribunal a-11owed the petitioner's appeal.
Having regard to the above iegal provisions, in our on opinion, petitioner is entitled to interest at t2oh p.a. ::3;:
refund amount of Rs, 11,43,88612_ from tmmediately fo.llowing the the date explry of the period of six months tiil the date on which the refund is granted.
The six month period from 16.11.201g, when the TVAT Tribuna_l decided the appeal TA.No.24/2020 ended on 16.05.2019, and so, from lZ.OS.2O1| to t2.lO.2O2O, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of refund of Rs.1 l,43,gB6l _ at t2o/o p.a.
Accordingly, the Writ petition is aljowed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition sha1l stand closed. I I B.SATYAVATHI i ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I To,
Two CD Copies MBC SECTION OFFICER
The Commercial Tax Officer, Mahaboobnagar, TS. ' [!:,.![?il[i! io""'["[?3 Reve n u e' fci-i i jBJp! iil"nt, State or rera n s a na
One CC to Sri-Venkatram Reddy Mantur Advocate [OPUC] o ,td,lr?". to GP For commeriidl i;i;;, 'riish ffiLii",. t; State or reransana. {,s' L ,//
HIGH GOURT. DATED: 27 t0412021 ORDER WP.No.13208 ot 2020 ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION b\ t-' ltr{ k q\ WTHOUT COSTS 11JUU2021 o S 1 f,a !,) ? c.',
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.