The Madras High Court directed the respondent State Tax Officer to refund excess tax paid by the petitioner within five weeks and to consider granting statutory simple interest.
Direction to refund excess tax within five weeks; mandate to consider interest claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.05.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.8694 of 2019
M/s.Sree Karthikeya Timber Rep.by its Partner B.Senthil Kumar No.95-D, sandhal Road Mettupatti Dindigul
... Petitioner
-vs-
The State Tax Officer- V Dindigul – V, Assessment Circle Dindigul
... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue refund voucher for the amount of tax paid in excess as per the order and Form P in TIN No.33265380102/2017-2018, dated 02.11.2018 along with interest due as contemplated under section 42 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2007 r/w.Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.D.Ganesan For Respondent : Mr.V.Anand Government Advocate *****
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue refund voucher for the amount of tax paid in excess as per the order and Form P in TIN No.33265380102/2017-2018, dated 02.11.2018 along with interest due as contemplated under section 42(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2007 r/w.Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007
2
calculation and issued a proceedings dated 02.11.2018, wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs.3,11,559/-(Rupees Three lakhs Eleven thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Nine only) has been assessed as excess payment, which is refundable to the petitioner. Even thereafter the said amount was not refunded. He would further submit that if the respondent has not paid the amount within 90 days, the petitioner is also entitled for simple interest from the respondent.
Sd/Vacation Officer
/ True Copy /
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
aav
To
The State Tax Officer- V Dindigul – V, Assessment Circle Dindigul
+1 CC to M/s.R.D.GANESAN,Advocate ( SR-65330[F] dated 08/05/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-65584[F] dated 09/05/2019 )
W.P.(MD)No.8694 of 2019 08.05.2019
ES/24.05.2019/2P/4C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent tax officer was directed to refund the excess tax paid by the petitioner within a specified period.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to simple interest on the refunded amount under section 42(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Sree Karthikeya Timber Rep. by B.Senthil Kumar
The State Tax Officer- V Dindigul – V, Assessment Circle Dindigul
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
