AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Raj Tanna for the respondent-State. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. Having regard to the controversy narrated in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents to forthwith release the balance amount of interest of Rs. 8,81,322/- under section 38 of the VAT Act. A1. This Hon'ble C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner has already availed transitional tax credit under section 140 of the GST act and therefore, on voluntary reversal of such credit, the petitioner could not have been granted the refund under the provisions of the VAT Act. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer preferred appeal before the Commissioner, who, by order dated 22.05.2023, allowed the appeal granting refund on unutilized input tax credit in the electronic ledger which was reversed by the petitioner. 8. The petitioner on receipt of the order of the appeal, preferred an application before the Assessing Officer requesting for release of the refund along with interest to be calculated as per the provision of the 38 of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fund payment order by reducing the amount of interest suo motu. 13. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Gujarat vs Doshi Printing Press reported in 2015 SCC online Guj. 2411 to submit that once the assessment order is merged with the appellate order, the interest is required to be paid from the date of the assessment order. 14. It was submitted that the respondent-authority could not have reduced the interest amount from the date of reversal of the credit and calculated the interest from 18.12.2020. 15. It was submitted that the petitioner has never been given an opportunity of hearing by the respondent-authority for revising the refund paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Rs. 14,97,412/- was incorrect as it calculated interest from 01.07.2017 to 22.05.2023 and the correct calculation of interest was Rs. 6,16,090/- from 18.12.2020 to 22.05.2023 and the said is already paid to the petitioner. Therefore, no grievance of the petitioner survives and the petitioner cannot insist upon the payment of such amount of which is not entitled to. 14. I also say and submit that the petitioner cannot even take a ground that irrespective of any calculation error he is entitled for the interest which was calculated by first RPO. The calculation of interest has to be done at the end of assessing officer and it may happen that he may make a bona fide mistake in calculating the interest component and in the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accounting year and such amount is required to be refunded, no interest shall be payable for the period from the date of closure of such accounting year to the date of payment of such amount. (2) A registered dealer entitled to refund in pursuance of any order other than referred to under sub-section (1) or in pursuance of any order by any court, shall subject to rules, be entitled to receive, in addition to the refund, simple interest at the rate of six per cent [per annum on the amount of such refund from the date immediately following the date of closer of the accounting year to which the said amount of refund relates] till the date of payment of amount of such refund. The interest shall be calculated on the amount of refund du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilized by the petitioner and the Commissioner has also rightly not granted refund of the amount input tax credit which is utilized by the petitioner. 21. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner made claim of refund for the amount of Rs. 42,35,215/- after considering already utilized amount of Rs. 3,45,133/- and there was shortfall of Rs. 22,500/ and therefore, the Commissioner, while granting refund, has taken into consideration this aspect and granted refund of only Rs. 42,34,894/- to the petitioner. Therefore, respondent-authority is required to calculate the interest on the amount as per the order passed by the appellate-authority from 01.07.2017 till the date of order i.e. 22.05.2023. 22. Therefore, refund payment order dated ....