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.

1. The petitioner was constrained to approach this court in view of the failure of the respondent to refund amounts payable as reflected in form 5 dated June 15, 2021 issued under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas (DTVSV) Act, 2020 read with the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Rules, 2020.

2. Form 5 provides that the Designated Authority has issued a certificate dated February 27, 2021 showing an amount of Rs.62,81,983 as refundable to the petitioner. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance issued a Central Action Plan for 2021-2022 in which clause 9 (page 74) reads as under:
'9. Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to pass consequential orders and reduce demand or issue refunds, latest by July 31, 2021 in all Vivad se Vishwas cases wherein form 5 has been issued up to June 30, 2021. For all subsequent issue of form 5, i.e., July 1, 2021 onwards jurisdictional Assessing Officers may give necessary effect within 30 days.' (emphasis supplied)

3. Since form 5 has been issued on June 15, 2021, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was duty bound to pass consequential orders and issue refunds latest by July 31, 2021. Mr. Gandhi states that the petitioner had addressed various communications calling upon the respondents to issue refund order and also pass orders giving effect under S.5(2) read with S.6 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 . Notwithstanding the above, respondent No. 1 has passed the order giving effect only on June 21, 2022, almost one year later. Despite that refund was not issued and the respondents have driven the petitioner to approach this court.

4. An affidavit - in - reply of one Uday Shankar (Deputy Commissioner of Income - tax) currently holding the post as Assistant Commissioner of Income - tax, Central Circle 3(2), Bombay affirmed on July 5, 2023 is filed in which it is mentioned the petitioner's refund has been issued and credited to the account of the petitioner on May 26, 2023 as per feedback received from the State Bank of India. Except a bald statement in the affidavit that delay in issuing refund has been attributable to some technical issues, there is nothing substantial in the affidavit. There is no explanation / reply also to the petitioner's averments that as per the Central Action Plan, the refund was to be issued by July 31, 2021 and why even the order giving effect under S.5(2) read with S.6 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act was passed only on June 21, 2022.

5. Mr. Gandhi says that now that the refund has been issued, the petitioner is entitled to some reasonable interest.

6. Mr. Bajpayee submits, relying upon the affidavit - in - reply, that Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act does not provide for any interest on excess amount under S.244A of the Income - tax Act, 1961 (the Act). In response, Mr. Gandhi relies on the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in Anjul v. Office of Pr. CIT (2022 SCC OnLine Del. 4939; (2022) 145 taxmann.com 140 (Delhi)) to submit that the hon'ble Delhi High Court relying upon the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2014 (363) ITR 658 (SC); (2014) 6 SCC 335; (2014) 3 SCC (Civ) 553; (2014) 43 taxmann.com 240 (SC).) has held, State having received the money without right and having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under like circumstances. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right to interest. Mr. Gandhi submits that in that case, the petitioner was an individual and the court granted 5 per cent. simple interest. In the case at hand, the petitioner is a corporate entity, which has to borrow amount at very high rate of interest for paying the