The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner is entitled to interest as calculated by the petitioner and confirmed by the respondent, and is also entitled to interest during the pendency of the proceeding before the court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioner the interest amount of Rs.6,21,919.74/- on the refund of Rs.2,28,928.00/- paid on 22.09.2021, along with interest thereon at 12% p.a.)

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to direct the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioner the interest amount of Rs.6,21,919.74/- on the refund of Rs.2,28,928.00/-.

2. The petitioner had succeeded before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT)-IV by an order dated 20.01.1997. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner became entitled to refund of a sum of Rs.2,42,405/-. However, the amount was not refunded to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10928 of 1998.

3. Meanwhile, the respondent-Commercial Tax Department wanted to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 20.01.1997. Therefore, the respondent-Commercial Tax Department issued show cause notice dated 04.05.1998 bearing reference SMR No.452/98, seeking to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-IV.

4. Meanwhile, by an order dated 13.02.2003, this Court passed the following order in W.P.No.10928 of 1998 and directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.2,42,405/- within a period of one month from the date of production of the order with interest at 12% per annum from 28.01.1998 till the date of payment as the Sales Tax officials are charging 24% for belated payment. Relevant portion of the order reads as under:

“4.Since, the order directing to refund the amount is not stayed or the order passed on which basis the refund order is given also not stayed, the petitioner is entitled for refund. Hence, the respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,42,405/- within a period of one month from the date of production of this order with interest at 12% per annum from 28.01.1998 till the date of payment as the Sales Tax officials are charging 24% for belated payment.”

5. Giving effect to the order of this Court dated 13.02.2003 in W.P.No.10928 of 1998, the respondent Commercial Tax Department also refunded a sum of Rs.2,22,818/- to the petitioner by communication dated 20.03.2003, bearing Reference Rc.No.980/98 A. Under these circumstances, the petitioner sent a representation and asked the respondent-Commercial Tax Department to pay interest as was ordered by this Court by the order dated 13.02.2003 in W.P.No.10928 of 1998.

6. Meanwhile, by an order dated 28.05.2003, the proposal containing show cause notice dated 04.05.1998 seeking to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-IV in AP.No.188/95 dated 20.01.1997 was passed. The order was revised. A consequential order was also passed on 05.12.2003 by 3rd respondent therein – the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah II Assessment Circle, Chennai.

7. This was challenged by the petitioner directly before this Court in W.P.No.35839 of 2003. This Court by its interim order dated 19.12.2003, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount demanded before the 3rd respondent therein – the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah II Assessment Circle, Chennai, within a period of eight weeks. This was also complied by the petitioner by depositing a sum of Rs.2,28,928/-. It was stated that the amount deposited was 50% of the tax amount.

8. Meanwhile, W.P.No.35839 of 2003 and the two other connected W.P.Nos.6254 and 9363 of 2004 filed by the petitioner were disposed of by this Court by its common order dated 17.03.2021.

9. After examining the records, a detailed order came to be passed after tracing out the history. In paragraph Nos.23 & 24, W.P.No.35839 of 2003 was allowed and the order dated 20.01.1997 of the Appellate Commissioner was restored. In the light of the order passed in W.P.No.35839 of 2003,