Back
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Satwashil Vasant Mane – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
As per an order issued under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the petitioner was found eligible for a refund of Rs.28,81,185/-. Despite the order, the amount was paid only after a 23-month delay. The petitioner's claim for interest on the refund so ordered was declined, and hence, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. On 04.08.2015, the police intercepted a vehicle, which, on search, was found to contain currency notes to the tune of Rs.1,10,00,000/- apart from 3 kilograms of gold bars, valued at Rs.75,00,000/-. The currency notes and the gold so seized were handed over to the jurisdictional Magistrate, pursuant to the registration of a crime. After due procedure, the income tax department declared the currency notes and the seized gold as income in the hands of the petitioner under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short ‘the Act’). Thereafter, a claim petition was filed before the Magistrate’s Court and custody of the currency notes was granted to the Income Tax Department on 04.11.2015 in view of orders issued under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, an order of assessment d
The court ruled that interest on delayed refund is due despite provisions of the VSV Act denying such interest, emphasizing accountability for wrongful retention of funds.
Petitioner entitled to interest on delayed refund from the date of entitlement, despite provisions of VSV Act prohibiting interest prior to refund determination.
In tax matters, entitlement to interest on delayed refunds, including on interest accrued, is affirmed, highlighting the principle that overdue amounts accrue additional interest.
The court held that the Revenue is accountable for delayed refunds and must pay interest despite the exclusion in the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The obligation to refund tax amounts includes the right to interest for undue retention, as established in the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.
Provision of law providing for interest on delayed payment of refund would apply to only those cases that fall under the purview of section 40(1) of the VAT Act and to no other. That is the plain eff....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a dealer to receive interest on the refund amount as per the provisions of section 38 of the VAT Act, and the requirement for th....
The court ruled that minor delays in tax payments under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act should not preclude benefits intended by the legislation, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of beneficia....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
