TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Form No.4, being a notice of final assessment and refund orders were issued. (iv) According to the petitioner, the amounts to be refunded were as follows: Assessment Year Refund Due (in Rs.) 1996-97 80,80,489-00 1997-98 21,49,454-00 1998-99 1,97,94,961-00 1999-2000 2,55,08,917-00 2000-2001 2,39,30,830-00 Total 7,94,64,051-00 (v) The refunds were not forthcoming despite several requests that hence culminated in a legal notice dated 07.03.2008. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.Nos.15571 to 15575 of 2008 seeking a mandamus for refund with simple interest at 12% per annum on the refunds, upto date of payment. (vi) Those Writ Petitions were disposed vide order dated 08.07.2008 directing the respondent to consider the legal notice issued by the petitioner dated 07.03.2008 within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of a copy of that order. (vii) In compliance with the aforesaid order, the respondent vide order dated 08.08.2008 rejected the request of the petitioner stating that as the assessments that had been remanded for the periods 1996-97 to 1998-99 under the CST Act were yet to be completed, and original assessments for the years 2002-03, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod of limitation as was prescribed under section 16 (1) (a) of the TNGST Act was amended with effect from 01.07.2002. The said amendment cannot be given effect in regard to the assessment years 1996-1997 to 2000-2001. In the amended Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act, limitation period of 5 years was prescribed "from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates". 12. In the present case, as the expiry of the year relater to 31.03.2001, the limitation for exercising the power under Section 16 (1) (a) comes to an end on 31.03.2006. Thereafter, with regard to the old assessment year 1996- 1997 to 2000-2001, it is not open for the assessing authority to make the assessment on the ground of escaped turnover under Section 16 of the TNGST Act on the basis of the subsequent amendment made under Section 16(1)(a). 13. However, as we find that in the meantime, on the basis of the appeal(s) preferred by the ecceEcce, a revised order of assessment has been passed on 29.10.2004 and on the basis of the subsequent assessment, Forn-C has also been issued, we modify the impugned order of the learned single Judge, dated 21.4.2009, by directing the appellant- Revenue to issue refund vouchers a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of a copy of that order. This order has attained finality. 6. Inspite of order dated 13.10.2014, it required the exchange of several communications and reminders on the part of the petitioner, for an order to be finally passed on 16.11.2018 by the Assistant Commissioner quantifying the refund and granting the same. Incidentally, even in that order, she accepts the position that Zeneco Agro Chemicals Limited is presently known as Syngenta Crop Protection Private Limited and that the identity of the company is one and the same under both names (see unnumbered paragraph at page 10 (placed at page 137 of the typed set of document dated 26.04.2019). 7. While granting the refund, she states that the issue of interest will be dealt with separately in line with Rule 23-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (in short 'TNGST Rules'). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made an application for interest, that resulted in a notice being issued by the respondent proposing rejection of the interest claimed. A personal hearing was afforded, replies of the petitioner duly taken into account and the impugned order passed on 09.04.2019 rejecting the request. 8. In the course of the proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... XXXIII as stipulated under rule 23-A(1) of the TNGST Rules 1959 till date and the interest workings for Rs. 11,12,87,639/ given in their letter dated 18.01.2019 are incorrect and reckoned on the basis of wrong due dates and days which are liable for summary rejection. (6) As per rule 23-A(2) of TNGST Rules 1959, no interest shall be payable for any period during which the refund was stayed by the competent authority under subsection of Section 39A or the intimation of refund could not be served on the dealer due to the non-availability of the dealer or his authorized representative or due to any delay on the postal authorities, in case such intimation was sent by post or for any other reason beyond the control of the department." 10. Submissions have been adduced and heard on each of the points and I summarise the same below along with my conclusions in respect thereof, in seriatim below. I must state at this juncture that learned AAG has reiterated the conclusions of the officer in the course of hearing before me and no other point has been made. (i) Adverting to point (1) and (2), the stand of the Department is that the petitioner has preferred appeals before the Appellate....