https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127206 Under the U.P. Trade Tax refund scheme, delayed payment of refundable tax beyond the statutory three-month period triggered simple interest at 18% per annum, and administrative objections such as verification or countersignature could not defer that liability; the refund was treated as pending until the voucher was made ready and communicated. The court also held that where statutory interest itself was unlawfully withheld, equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 could justify compensation by awarding interest on the withheld interest at the current bank rate, together with exemplary costs for arbitrary revenue conduct. The principal refund amounts had already been paid, so no further substantive refund direction was required. en-us Fri, 06 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127206 Under the U.P. Trade Tax refund scheme, delayed payment of refundable tax beyond the statutory three-month period triggered simple interest at 18% per annum, and administrative objections such as verification or countersignature could not defer that liability; the refund was treated as pending until the voucher was made ready and communicated. The court also held that where statutory interest itself was unlawfully withheld, equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 could justify compensation by awarding interest on the withheld interest at the current bank rate, together with exemplary costs for arbitrary revenue conduct. The principal refund amounts had already been paid, so no further substantive refund direction was required. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 06 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127206