TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders interest payment under Punjab Sales Tax Act for delayed penalty refund, dismissing respondent's intent argument.</h1> <h3>Sutlej Industries Limited Versus State of Punjab and Others</h3> The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner under section 12(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. ... - Issues:Petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to pay interest on refunded amount under Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for interest payment on Rs. 2,43,000 refunded after Sales Tax Tribunal's order. The penalty was imposed for transporting goods without necessary documents, later annulled by the Tribunal.2. The petitioner applied for refund in July 1998, facing delays in processing. After encashing the refund voucher, they requested interest under section 12(3) of the Act, citing delays till June 1999 when the refund was issued.3. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support their claim for interest payment, arguing that the delay in refund was not deliberate. The respondents contested, claiming the annulled penalty order wasn't by the Assessing Authority.4. The respondents argued against interest payment, stating the delay wasn't intentional. The Court examined section 12(1) to (4) of the Act, emphasizing the Assessing Authority's obligation to refund and the provision for interest in case of delays.5. The Court considered submissions, noting the mandatory refund provisions and the entitlement to interest if refunds are delayed. The argument that the Excise and Taxation Officer wasn't the Assessing Authority was dismissed.6. The Court ruled that the delay in refunding the penalty amount entitled the petitioner to interest under section 12(3) of the Act. The delay of over two years in refunding without lawful authority warranted compensation through interest.7. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner as per section 12(3) of the Act. The interest was to be paid for the period between the application date and the actual payment date, to be settled within one month of the order.
TaxTMI 
