Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited,, ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 13 August, 2018
The similar
clarification has come in the subsequent case of Gujrat
Flourochemicals (supra) also i.e. "we clarify that it is only that
interest provided for under the statute which may be claimed by
11
E. 50125 of 2019 [SM]
an assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such
statutory interest".
V. Kala Bharathi & Ors vs The Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.,Br.Chitoor on 1 April, 2014
9. Now coming to the alternate argument of the Appellant that
from the amount of refund sanctioned since there is an interest
liability, the amount should be first adjusted towards the interest
liability. It is observed that this rule of first appropriating the
interest is applicable only to the debts or to the decreetal amount.
The case law as relied upon by the appellant is also either qua
debts or qua the decreetal amount. Hence, the same is not
applicable to the present case of refund of indirect taxes. The said
rule of interpretation is otherwise contained in order-21 Rule-1 of
Civil Procedure Code relating to execution of decrees for recovery
of money. Such a provision stands absolutely excluded from the
Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, hon'ble Apex Court in the case
law relied upon by the Appellant i.e in the case of V. Kala
Bharathi (supra) has rather clarified that, "after such
appropriation the decree holder is entitled to interest only to the
12
E. 50125 of 2019 [SM]
extent of unpaid principal amount. Hence, the interest be
calculated on the unpaid principal amount." This clarification
stands unsatisfied by the Appellant in the present case. Hence,
the second line of argument of Appellant is also opined not
applicable to the given set of facts & circumstances.
Sandvik Asia Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors on 27 January, 2006
7. No doubt the decision of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (Supra) has not
been overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent
decision of Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (Supra). But, perusal of that
decision shows that the question to be adjudicated in that decision
before the Supreme Court was whether an assessee is entitled to
be compensated by the Income Tax department for the delay in
paying interest on the refunded amount, admittedly, due to the
assessee. The question was adjudicated in affirmative. Revenue
was directed to pay compensation for the delay in making
payment after the lapse of statutory period. In that case also
Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that amount, specifically, is
compensation and is not an interest on interest.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal vs Narendra Doshi on 26 July, 2001
The Hon'ble Apex Court in this case while relying upon the
decision of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narender Doshil
254 ITR 606 (S.P) has, however, held that the Revenue is liable
to pay compensation on the amount of interest which it should
have given to the assessee but has unjustifiably failed to do this.
Section 8 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Industrial Credit And Development ... vs Smt. Smithaben H. Patel And Others on 10 February, 1999
1563, decision of
Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Vs. Smithaben
H. Patel & Ors. reported as AIR 1999 (SC) 1036 have been
relied upon by the appellant. Finally, impressing upon that on the
delayed sanction of refund of interest on 26.04.2018 the appellant
is entitled to interest in the terms of Section 11BB for the period
from 21.02.2012 to 26.04.2018. Therefore, the order challenge is
prayed to be set aside and three of the appeals are prayed to be
allowed.
State Of Gujarat vs M/S Unjha Pharmacy....Opponent(S) on 29 August, 2016
Learned Counsel has also placed reliance upon the
decision of State of Gujarat Vs Unjha Pharmacy reported as
2016 (341) ELT 211 (Gujrat) wherein the decision of Gujrat
Fluoro (Supra) has been followed holding that compensation for
prolonged delay in sanction of interest has to be granted.
1