Statutory refund in assessment must be honoured as determined, and delay in issuing it attracts interest.

Excess tax found refundable in assessment had to be given effect by issuing refund vouchers or a refund adjustment order with the assessment order under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and Rules. A later administrative attempt to withhold the refund by relying on an amendment and filing away the refund application was invalid, because the Assessing Authority could not disregard the assessment already framed and had no lawful review power in the circumstances. Where the statutory refund was not issued in the prescribed manner within time, interest became payable on the refunded amounts. The petitioner was therefore entitled to both the refund determined in assessment and statutory interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assessing Authority could refuse to issue refund vouchers for excess tax found payable in assessment by relying on a later amendment and by filing the refund application; (ii) Whether interest was payable where the refund vouchers were not issued along with the assessment order.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Authority could refuse to issue refund vouchers for excess tax found payable in assessment by relying on a later amendment and by filing the refund application.

Analysis: Under Section 43 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and Rule 35 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1973, where excess tax is found paid at the time of assessment, the Assessing Authority must determine the refundable amount and send the refund voucher or refund adjustment order with the assessment order. The refusal to honour the refund already determined in assessment, by invoking an earlier amendment to Section 15A, was not permissible. The Assessing Authority could not sit in judgment over the assessment framed by its predecessor, and the purported filing away of the refund application had no statutory basis. The power of review under Section 41 was also unavailable because it could be exercised only by an officer above the rank of Excise and Taxation Officer.

Conclusion: The refusal to issue the refund vouchers was unlawful, and the petitioner was entitled to the refund determined in assessment.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable where the refund vouchers were not issued along with the assessment order.

Analysis: Rule 35 contemplates that refund should ordinarily accompany the assessment order. Where the amount refundable is not issued in the prescribed manner within the statutory time, the dealer becomes entitled to interest. The court followed the settled view that once no amount remains due after assessment, the question of adjustment does not arise and refund must follow, failing which statutory interest is attracted.

Conclusion: Interest on the refunded amounts was payable to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the respondents were directed to issue refund vouchers for the excess amounts found in assessment together with statutory interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund determined in assessment must be given effect in the manner prescribed by the statute, and a later administrative attempt to withhold that refund without lawful review power is invalid; delayed statutory refund carries interest.

---