2021 (7) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order is being passed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8571 of 2021 are taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs as contained in paragraph 10 of the petition: "A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition; B. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition; C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue by respondent No. 4 declare the letter rejecting the rectification application to be illegal and arbitrary issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 02 and 03 to pay amount of interest @ 6% PA on the refund amount in accordance with Section 38(2) (supra) in regard to the period starting from the date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was directed to be paid to the petitioner. The said amount of refund, pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No. 2, was paid vide the order dated 27.12.2017. According to the petitioner, in the meantime, the issue with respect to the double reversal of VAT credit on purchase of Fuel was settled in case of Reliance Industries Limited by the Supreme Court in favour of the department and therefore, pursuant to the said order, the Additional Commissioner (Investigation), Ahmedabad passed an order under section 75 of the said Act by which, the petitioner was directed to make payment of tax of Rs. 1,20,709/- as also Rs. 2,69,785/- towards interest under section 42(6) of the said Act. As mentioned in the said order dated 21.07.2020 itself,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e additional refund payable to the petitioner, however, had failed to award statutory interest as per section 38(2) of the said Act. It is submitted that while passing the order in appeal, the respondent No. 2 was obliged to pass the order with regard to the interest on the additional amount of refund under section 38(2) of the said Act even though not demanded, and therefore, the rectification application was preferred by the petitioner, which has been filed by the impugned communication on extraneous consideration. 6. The Court does not find any substance in the above submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Trivedi for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner had not raised any objection with regard to the non-grant of int....