1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Government entity wins tax refund case, entitled to interest for delayed refund per Punjab Sales Tax Act.</h1> The Court held in favor of the petitioner, a Government of India undertaking, in a tax refund case under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The ... - Issues:Refund of tax amount with interest delayed for about five years.Analysis:The petitioner, a Government of India undertaking, was assessed for tax amounting to Rs. 4,52,027 for the assessment year 1979-80 under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The petitioner appealed against the assessment and also sought exemption, which was denied by the appellate authority. The Sales Tax Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 4,00,000 for further appeal. The petitioner complied, and the amount was encashed by the respondents. Subsequently, the Assessing Authority's order was quashed, and the case was remanded twice, leading to delays in refund. The petitioner applied for a refund immediately after the first remand order and again after the second remand order, but the refund was delayed for about five years. The petitioner claimed interest on the delayed refund, citing section 12(3) of the Punjab Act and rule 50 of the 1949 Rules.The petitioner contended that the delay in refund was not attributable to them and argued that the Assessing Authority had no legal authority to withhold the refund amount. The petitioner highlighted the provisions of section 12(3) of the Punjab Act and rule 50 of the 1949 Rules, which entitle the dealer to interest if the refund is not made within 90 days of the order. The respondents failed to provide any justification for the delay in refunding the amount. The Tribunal's order clearly indicated that consequential reliefs should be allowed to the appellant dealer, and the petitioner had promptly applied for a refund after the remand orders.The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to interest on the refund amount as per section 12(3) of the Punjab Act and rule 50 of the 1949 Rules. The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner on the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 within three months from the date of the order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
