IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 15730 of 2009
Date of Decision: December 16, 2009
Sukhwinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. A.K. Sachdeva, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The claim made by the petitioner in the instant petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of direction to the
respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 16,25,295/- as determined by the
Assessing Authority-respondent vide order dated 12.6.2009 (P-4) under the
Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) in respect of the
assessment year 2003-04. The prayer has also been made for payment of
interest for the delay in making refund.
In the short written statement filed by the Assessing Authority-
respondent No. 2 it has been stated that the refund voucher amounting to Rs.
16,25,295/- has been issued to the petitioner on 9.12.2009. It has further
C.W.P. No. 15730 of 2009 2
been clarified that the refund under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act is
required to be allowed after prior approval of the Excise and Taxation
Commissioner which is the prescribed authority and the approval was finally
accorded on 30.11.2009. It has, thus, been claimed that no interest under
sub-section (10) of Section 20 of the Act would be admissible to the
petitioner.
We asked Mr. Kamal Sehgal when the refund voucher was
handed over to the petitioner. He has clarified that the refund voucher was
sent to the petitioner but he was not available and then his son refused to
accept the same. Mr. Sehgal states that the refund voucher is with him and he
has handed over the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner. With
regard to interest in terms of sub-section (10) of Section 20 of the Act, Mr.
Sehgal has stated that after the amendment incorporated on 20.3.2009, the
period of 60 days is to count from the date of approval accorded by the
prescribed authority, which in the present case was Excise and Taxation
Commissioner. The approval was accorded on 30.11.2009 and the refund
voucher has been issued to the petitioner and handed over to his learned
counsel within a period of 60 days and, therefore, no interest would accrue as
there is no delay in terms of the amended provision.
In view of the above, this petition is rendered infructuous and
the same is disposed of as such.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JASWANT SINGH)
December 16, 2009 JUDGE
Pkapoor