Refund interest under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act starts from the appellate order, not the original tax collection date.

Section 13A governed interest on refund of excess tax, and interest was held payable only from the date of the appellate order allowing refund, not from the earlier date of collection. The revisional court found no surviving question of law under Section 23(1) because the dispute had already been resolved on refund and the remaining issue concerned the statutory commencement of interest. The Tribunal also correctly declined to read down Section 13A, as that request lay outside its jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any question of law arose for consideration in the revision under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 on the claim for interest on refund of excess tax. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to interest from the date of collection of excess tax or, at least, from the date of the appellate order allowing refund, and whether the Tribunal could read down Section 13A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether any question of law arose for consideration in the revision under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 on the claim for interest on refund of excess tax.

Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction under Section 23(1) is confined to cases where the Tribunal has failed to decide or has erroneously decided a question of law. The dispute had already culminated in allowance of the refund claim by the first appellate authority, and the subsequent controversy was only about the statutory point from which interest became payable under Section 13A. On the facts placed, the Court found no surviving question of law warranting interference in revision.

Conclusion: No question of law arose for consideration under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to interest from the date of collection of excess tax or, at least, from the date of the appellate order allowing refund, and whether the Tribunal could read down Section 13A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 13A governs payment of interest on refund and was treated as the operative provision. The Court held that interest became payable from the date of the order allowing the appeal, namely 24.03.2012, and not from the earlier date of collection of the excess amount. It further held that the Tribunal correctly declined to read down Section 13A because such a prayer lay outside its jurisdiction and outside the scope of the appeal.

Conclusion: The claim for interest from the date of collection was not accepted, and the Tribunal's refusal to entertain the plea for reading down Section 13A was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the statutory scheme of interest on refund under Section 13A was correctly applied and no revisable question of law was shown.

Ratio Decidendi: Where refund interest is regulated by a specific statutory provision, the entitlement and commencement of interest must be determined by that provision, and a revisional court will not interfere in the absence of an identifiable question of law.

---