TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory interest under Section 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on the refunded tax amount; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation in writ jurisdiction for the period during which the amount remained with the Revenue.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory interest under Section 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on the refunded tax amount.
Analysis: Section 24(4) makes interest payable only when an excess amount found refundable on assessment, revision, appeal or review is not refunded within the prescribed time. Here, the refund was quantified only after the Supreme Court's order and was paid within the timeline fixed by that order and within the statutory period. Interest under the provision arises only on breach of that statutory timeline.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to statutory interest under Section 24(4).
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation in writ jurisdiction for the period during which the amount remained with the Revenue.
Analysis: The governing principle is that compensation for delayed refund is not automatic and depends on the nature of the delay, the statutory scheme, the conduct of the parties, and whether the delay was inordinate or vexatious. The Court applied the later clarification of the law that only statutory interest can ordinarily be claimed, while further compensation is exceptional. As the recovery had been made pursuant to the then-operative legal process, no wrongful deprivation or vexatious conduct was established to justify compensation.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to compensation.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of interest and compensation failed, and the writ petition was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Interest on refund is payable only when the statutory conditions and timelines for refund are breached, and additional compensation in writ jurisdiction is granted only in exceptional cases of inordinate or otherwise unjustified delay.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
