Excess tax refund cannot be withheld for pending independent penalty proceedings, and delayed payment attracts compensatory interest.

Refund of excess tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could not be withheld merely because a penalty proceeding under section 10E(3) was pending, since rule 55(1A) permits adjustment only against specified arrears, including penalties assessed under section 11. A contingent penalty under section 10E(3) is independent and outside that adjustment scheme, so retention of the refundable amount was unjustified. Where the refund was delayed after issuance of the notice in form VII, compensatory interest was payable despite the absence of a general statutory interest clause, because the statutory scheme contemplated prompt payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessing authority could withhold refund of excess tax paid by the dealer on the ground that a penalty proceeding under section 10E(3) was pending; (ii) Whether interest was payable on the delayed refund of the excess amount.

Issue (i): Whether the assessing authority could withhold refund of excess tax paid by the dealer on the ground that a penalty proceeding under section 10E(3) was pending.

Analysis: Section 12 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and rule 55(1A) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 make refund of excess tax obligatory, subject only to adjustment against specified arrears of tax, surcharge, additional surcharge and penalty assessed under section 11. The contemplated adjustment is confined to known arrears of the kind expressly mentioned in the rule. A penalty under section 10E(3) is distinct from a penalty assessed under section 11, and proceedings under section 10E are independent, with their own mode of recovery. The authority could not retain the refundable amount merely because a future penalty under section 10E(3) might be imposed.

Conclusion: The withholding of the refund was not permissible and was unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable on the delayed refund of the excess amount.

Analysis: Although the statute did not contain a general provision for interest on delayed refund in such a case, rule 55(1A) required the Refund Payment Order to be sent along with the notice in form VII. The statutory scheme contemplated prompt refund, and the absence of an express interest clause could not justify prolonged withholding of the dealer's money. Since the money remained unpaid after the notice in form VII, compensatory interest was warranted for the period of delay.

Conclusion: Interest was payable on the refunded amount at 1 per cent per month from the date of issue of the notice in form VII until payment.

Final Conclusion: The dealer was entitled to immediate refund of the excess tax with compensatory interest, and the pending penalty proceeding could not be used to defer payment.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of excess tax must be made in accordance with the refund provision and cannot be withheld for a contingent or independent penalty proceeding not covered by the adjustment rule; unjustified delay in refund may attract compensatory interest even in the absence of an express general interest provision.

---