- (1.) IN this application the applicant has expressed his grievance on not getting the refund that is due to him after the order imposing penalty on him was set aside in revision. The order in revision was passed on June 1, 2000 and the applicant has not received that refund of Rs. 2 lakhs till date. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant prays for immediate refund of the amount as well as for payment of interest for the period for which the refund has been withheld at 24 per cent per annum. The learned advocate submits that provision of 24 per cent of interest already exists in respect of tax and that should be taken to extend to the matter of penalty also. He refers to a judgment of this Tribunal reported in [2001] 122 STC 310 (Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) where such interest has been awarded.
(2.) MR . D. Gangopadhyay, learned State Representative submits that after the order in revision was passed on June 1, 2000 the refund payment order had been issued on January 8, 2001 and this was communicated by post to the applicant on January 9, 2001, The matter was followed up by the respondents with the concerned treasury officer and it has been intimated that the cheque is now ready. Mr. Gangopadhyay submits to this Tribunal particulars about the Token No. given by the treasury to this payment. He further submits that the delayed payment of penalty which arises out of Sections 68 to 71 does not entitle him to interest. The provision of Section 34 is clear in this case. Further he refers the unreported judgment of this Tribunal in RN 254 of 2000 wherein it has been held that interest is not to be paid on delayed payment of penalty amount. He points out that the matter dealt with the case reported in [2001] 122 STC 310 (WBTT) (Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) concerned amounts of tax and hence Section 34 laid down that interest will have to be paid on delayed refund. Considering that the arrangement for refund is now completed not only by the respondent -authority, but also by the Government treasury, we need not pass specific direction to issue the refund payment voucher. That voucher has already been issued eight months back. Also we find that there is no provision in the law to grant interest in the case of refund of penalty amount not associated with assessment. We, therefore, dispose of this application finally with the direction that the respondent -authorities shall immediately give copies of relevant communications and informations about the refund payment voucher and the actions taken in the treasury within 24 hours to the applicant. With that the application is finally disposed of without costs.;