In the instant case, the respondents had withheld the refund for 11 years on ground of 'want of cross-verification details' which is not a ground for withholding the refund due to petitioner. respondent withholding the refund is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction; the said order is accordingly set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the said amount with interest
Section 33C of the APGST Act — Undue delay in Refund – The petitioner in pursuant the Supreme court interim order paid Rs.13,03,679/- and Rs.15,06,753/-, in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court on 25.9.1989 remanded the matter to the respondent, who again confirmed the demand. The petitioner preferred before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, who on 3.2.1993 allowed the appeal. The petitioner submitted that in spite of the said orders, the amount of Rs. 28,10,432/- was not refunded to him for want of getting cross verification on payment details from the CTOs. The respondent submitted that in absence of realization particulars relating to the amount of Rs. 28,10,432/-, credit was not given, which resulted in withholding of the said amount. The court observed that once the respondents admitted the receipt of the Demand drafts for Rs. 28,10,432, payment is deemed to be complete. The withholding of the refund by the respondents on the alleged ground that challans are not traceable cannot be a valid reason. The respondents had withheld the refund for 11 years on ground of 'want of cross-verification details' which is not a ground mentioned in section 33C for withholding the refund due to petitioner.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. Further, held that the order dated 5-5-2009 withholding refund of Rs. 28,10,432/- is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondents are directed to refund the said amount with interest at 12% P.A.
In the instant case, the respondents had withheld the refund for 11 years on ground of 'want of cross-verification details' which is not a ground for withholding the refund due to petitioner. respondent withholding the refund is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction; the said order is accordingly set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the said amount with interest
Section 33C of the APGST Act — Undue delay in Refund – The petitioner in pursuant the Supreme court interim order paid Rs.13,03,679/- and Rs.15,06,753/-, in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court on 25.9.1989 remanded the matter to the respondent, who again confirmed the demand. The petitioner preferred before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, who on 3.2.1993 allowed the appeal. The petitioner submitted that in spite of the said orders, the amount of Rs. 28,10,432/- was not refunded to him for want of getting cross verification on payment details from the CTOs. The respondent submitted that in absence of realization particulars relating to the amount of Rs. 28,10,432/-, credit was not given, which resulted in withholding of the said amount. The court observed that once the respondents admitted the receipt of the Demand drafts for Rs. 28,10,432, payment is deemed to be complete. The withholding of the refund by the respondents on the alleged ground that challans are not traceable cannot be a valid reason. The respondents had withheld the refund for 11 years on ground of 'want of cross-verification details' which is not a ground mentioned in section 33C for withholding the refund due to petitioner.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. Further, held that the order dated 5-5-2009 withholding refund of Rs. 28,10,432/- is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondents are directed to refund the said amount with interest at 12% P.A.