TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (9) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als filed by the petitioner against the assessment orders for the years 1981-82 to 1983-84 were dismissed by the first appellate authority. In second appeal by the petitioner the Tribunal reversed the orders of the authorities below and remitted the matter to the assessing authority for disposal, with the observation that if the appellant is able to produce necessary evidences to substantiate her contention that the business was set up on any date between April 11, 1979 and October 21, 1980, she should not be denied the exemptions promised as per notification dated April 11, 1979, merely because the date of commencement of business was shown as April 1, 1981 in the application for sales tax registration. The Tribunal's order is evidenced by exhibit P1. Pursuant to the Tribunal's order the first respondent assessing authority revised the assessment orders for the years 1981-82 to 1983-84 evidenced by exhibits P2 to P4. The first respondent held that the petitioner was qualified for full tax exemption for a period of 5 years from the date of production, that is from April 13, 1981. Accordingly, the assessment for the year 1981-82 was recorded as a case of nil demand. It is stated tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had set up the industry before October 21, 1980. 3.. The petitioner has filed this original petition seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to refund to the petitioner the amounts ordered to be refunded as per exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the date of those orders. 4.. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein it is stated that though refund was ordered for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1985-86, the orders for the years 1981-82 to 1983-84 were revised by the Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam in exercise of his power under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated October 15, 1993 annulled the orders passed by the assessing authority. It is further stated that the petitioner preferred appeals to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam against the said order as T.A. Nos. 867, 868 and 869 of 1993 and the Tribunal disposed of the said appeals by order dated May 30, 1995 restoring the orders passed by the assessing authority. It is stated that this order was communicated to the first respondent on February 26, 1996 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment years 1981-82 to 1985-86. Learned counsel submitted that the only dispute in this case is regarding the period for which interest is due and the rate of interest. Learned counsel submitted that in exhibit P1 order itself the Tribunal has decided the question regarding the eligibility of exemption and that the first respondentassessing authority had considered the claim as ordered by the Tribunal and held that the petitioner is entitled to exemption pleaded and also ordered refund of the excess tax paid evidenced by exhibits P2 to P4. Though the said orders were cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers vested under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated May 30, 1995 cancelled the order of the Deputy Commissioner and restored exhibits P2, P3 and P4 revised orders passed by the first respondent. Similarly against the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner exhibit P5 passed for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 holding that the petitioner is entitled to exemption pleaded the department took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal as T.A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised orders. Though certain amounts have been adjusted as mentioned earlier in this judgment no further payments were made pursuant to exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7. Since the amounts remained unpaid the petitioner has become entitled to get interest on the said amounts on the expiry of three months from the date of exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 at the rate of 6 per cent from that date as provided under section 44 of the Act. The fact that the revised orders or the appellate order based on which the revised orders were passed were taken in further proceedings and ultimately resulted in restoring the revised orders will not absolve the respondent from paying interest for the period during which further proceedings for the assessment years in question were pending. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Shyam Electricals v. State of Kerala 1994 KLJ TC 233 for claiming a higher rate of interest than what is provided under section 44 of the Act, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot get the said benefit in this case for the entire period. 7.. In this case the revised assessment orders passed by the assessing authority were the....