Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Jiwand Singh And Sons vs Special Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes ... on 16 August, 2022
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1247/2021
M/S JIWAND SINGH AND SONS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajesh Mahna, Adv.
versus
SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF
TRADE AND TAXES & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Amandeep Joshi, Adv. along with
Ms Trisha Kadyan, Legal Advisor.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 16.08.2022 [Physical Court hearing/ Hybrid hearing (as per request)]
1. The above-captioned writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2020.
1.1. Via the impugned order, the concerned authority has declined payment of interest to the petitioner, on the amount which was deposited by it as pre-deposit for prosecuting the appeal.
2. Mr Rajesh Mahna, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn our attention to PDF page 57of the case file. 2.1. This is an order of the assessing authority which, inter alia, holds that Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner for prosecuting the appeal was refundable, albeit, upon a proper application being filed in the prescribed manner, within the stipulated time frame by the petitioner. 2.2. Mr Mahna says that such an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner, in and about May 2012.
2.3. Furthermore, Mr Mahna relies upon Section 30(4) of the Delhi Sales W.P.(C) 1247/2021 page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:31.08.2022 17:03:10 Tax Act, 1975, to contend that the petitioner is entitled to interest on Rs.10,00,000/-, which had been deposited at the appropriate stage, for prosecuting the appeal.
3. It is not in dispute that Rs.10,00,000/- has already been refunded to the petitioner.
3.1. Mr Mahna says that the amount was refunded in and about February 2021.
4. Mr Mahna goes on to state that since the application for refund was filed in May 2012, interest is claimed from May 2012,up until the date of refund of Rs.10,00,000/- which, according to the petitioner, as noted above, was February 2021.
5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in MRF Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr. dated 10.08.2018, passed in W.P. (C) No. 3118/2018.
5.1.This judgment appears to deal with a somewhat similar issue, as has arisen in the instant case.
5.2. The respondents/revenue appear to have carried the said judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in SLP (C) No.3 1522/2018,has issued notice and stayed the operation of the judgment.
5.3. The special leave petition, according to learned counsel for the respondents/revenue, is pending adjudication.
6. Although, Mr Mahna says that notwithstanding the stay granted in the MRF Ltd. case, this Court should proceed further in the matter, we tend to W.P.(C) 1247/2021 page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:31.08.2022 17:03:10 disagree with Mr Mahna.
7. Accordingly, list the matter on 11.01.2023.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
AUGUST 16, 2022/aj
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 1247/2021 page 3 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATUL
JAIN
Signing Date:31.08.2022
17:03:10