https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328479 The court set aside the rejection of the refund application by the Assistant Commissioner, Ward-16, and directed the respondents to issue the refund of Rs. 34,62,662 with 6% interest per annum by 31st May, 2016. Failure to comply would result in legal consequences for the officers. The court criticized the respondents for arbitrary actions and emphasized the importance of timely processing of refund applications and compliance with court orders for justice to prevail. Further proceedings were scheduled for 2nd June 2016, with a provision for personal appearance of officers if the refund was not issued as directed. en-us Mon, 23 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jun 2016 14:46:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328479 The court set aside the rejection of the refund application by the Assistant Commissioner, Ward-16, and directed the respondents to issue the refund of Rs. 34,62,662 with 6% interest per annum by 31st May, 2016. Failure to comply would result in legal consequences for the officers. The court criticized the respondents for arbitrary actions and emphasized the importance of timely processing of refund applications and compliance with court orders for justice to prevail. Further proceedings were scheduled for 2nd June 2016, with a provision for personal appearance of officers if the refund was not issued as directed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 23 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328479