2011 (12) TMI 476

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g with interest. The petitioner has further sought a writ of certiorari quashing the penalty order dated June 6, 2007 passed by the said respondent under section 15A(1)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", filed as annexure No. 14 to the writ petition. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Act and deals in purchase and sale of tendu leaves, stone and stone plates, i.e., patiya and patthar. These goods were imported from outside the State of U.P. against the declaration form XXXI. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow, respondent No. 2, had issued a circular under section 8C(3A) of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... should not be awarded to the petitioner for the delayed payment. The order dated May 27, 2010 is reproduced below: "By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is claiming the refund of Rs. 24,54,650. It appears that out of the aforesaid amount an amount of Rs. 7,20,000 had already been paid after the decision of the Tribunal and a sum of Rs. 17,33,550 is outstanding. The contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid amount has been deposited at the check-post as a security and in absence of any dues against the petitioner the same is liable to be refunded. In support of the claim that the amount has been deposited towards security, the certificate of the check-post officers has been filed along with the writ petition. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is still sub judice and as such the petitioner is not entitled for payment of interest on the amount refunded to it so long as the controversy is not finally decided by this court. We have heard Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the respondents. Sri Saxena has confined his submissions relating to the claim of interest on the delayed payment of refund and not on the question of penalty order under section 15(1)(c) of the Act for which he submits that he shall pursue the statutory remedy. Sri Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the entire amount deposited by the petitioner towards security has been refunded, the plea that the amount of se....