https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161701 Rule 35(1)(b) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 was upheld as constitutional because the absence of a matching interest provision for tax refunds did not create arbitrariness or hostile discrimination. The Court held that a tax demand raised by the assessing authority under the statute does not become illegal merely because it is later set aside for legal or factual error, so no automatic right to interest on refund arose. It further found that an assessee in default and the State in refund matters are not similarly situated, and the classification had a rational basis. The petitioner was therefore denied interest on the refunded tax amount. en-us Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Feb 2014 15:48:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161701 Rule 35(1)(b) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 was upheld as constitutional because the absence of a matching interest provision for tax refunds did not create arbitrariness or hostile discrimination. The Court held that a tax demand raised by the assessing authority under the statute does not become illegal merely because it is later set aside for legal or factual error, so no automatic right to interest on refund arose. It further found that an assessee in default and the State in refund matters are not similarly situated, and the classification had a rational basis. The petitioner was therefore denied interest on the refunded tax amount. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161701