TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether refund of entry tax could be paid to the power of attorney holder or a person identified by such holder instead of the recorded dealer; (ii) whether refund was payable with interest and from which date; (iii) whether costs were payable.
Issue (i): Whether refund of entry tax could be paid to the power of attorney holder or a person identified by such holder instead of the recorded dealer.
Analysis: The refund provisions were read with the general law of evidence and the wide meaning of "dealer" under the statute. The Court held that refund, like collection, could be effected through an authorised representative, and that the authority's concern was only to ensure proper identification and accountability. Section 85 of the Evidence Act supported acceptance of the power of attorney, subject to compliance with formalities to protect the revenue.
Conclusion: Refund could validly be disbursed to the power of attorney holder or a person identified by such holder, and such payment would amount to compliance with the statutory refund obligation.
Issue (ii): Whether refund was payable with interest and from which date.
Analysis: The Court held that interest is ordinarily part of refund and should accompany delayed refund. It rejected the plea that inability to locate the actual dealer justified withholding interest. The Court fixed the starting point for interest at the date of the Supreme Court's order referred to in the judgment, and directed simple interest at 12% per annum until actual refund.
Conclusion: Refund was directed to carry simple interest at 12% per annum from 8 May 2000 until actual payment.
Issue (iii): Whether costs were payable.
Analysis: Considering the circumstances and the relief granted on the substantive refund dispute, the Court declined to impose costs.
Conclusion: No costs were awarded.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that refund was ordered in favour of the petitioners through their authorised representative with statutory interest, while the claim for costs was declined.
Ratio Decidendi: Where refund under a taxing statute is otherwise due, it may be paid to an authorised power of attorney holder upon satisfactory identification, and delayed refund ordinarily carries interest from the date fixed by the Court.
TaxTMI 
