G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund Rs. 43,84,385 along with interest thereon to the petitioner. The case pleaded by the petitioner is that it is a private limited company and engaged in the business of contractor and dealer registered under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is having TIN No. 06931931344 and is registered at Gurgaon in Haryana where it has its head office. The return for the assessment year 2007 -08 had been filed and the case of the petitioner was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was finalised on March 16, 2011 and it was found that the petitioner was entitled for refund of Rs. 43,88,385. The refund was due to excess deduction of tax at source. Since no refund was received along with the assessment order, the petitioner filed application dated July 27, 2011 requesting for issuance of refund voucher. The application for refund was received by the respondent on August 9, 2011. However, the order of assessment was rectified and the refund amount was reduced to Rs. 43,84,385 vide order dated September 2, 2011. The refund voucher was not issued to the petitioner in spite being quantified as early on March 16, 2011 by the assessment order and almost an year had passed, no refund had been received. Accordingly, writ petition was filed, placing reliance on section 20 of the Act and rules 41 and 42 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of this court in CWP No. 8383 of 2000 titled Pardeep Traders v. State of Punjab decided on August 3, 2000.
(2.) IN the short reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it was pleaded that the assessment of the petitioner was not finalised and proceedings under section 34 of the Act were pending before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as JETC) and notice had been served upon the petitioner. The assessment had been finalized on March 16, 2011 by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as DETC) and it was rectified on September 2, 2011. The petitioner had moved an application for refund dated August 9, 2011 and after the rectification order dated September 2, 2011, the amount of refund was reduced to Rs. 43,84,385 from Rs. 43,88,385. The legal competency to allow the refund of more than 10 lacs was with the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") to whom it was forwarded by the JETC for approval. The JETC had observed some illegalities on January 11, 2012 and the case had been sent for suo motu revision on February 21, 2012 and notice had been served upon the petitioner on March 23, 2012. Since revisional proceedings were in progress, the quantum of refund was still not ascertained. Reliance was placed upon section 20(6) of the Act to aver that the refund was to be subject to the approval by the prescribed authority. That on August 28, 2012, counsel for the State had pointed out that sanction for refund of Rs. 43,84,385 had been recommended by the JETC vide memo dated August 22, 2012 and that a communication dated August 23, 2012 had been forwarded to the DETC for releasing the payment and had taken time to produce the cheque. On October 5, 2012, counsel for the petitioner accepted that the amount of Rs. 43,84,385 had been paid to the petitioner. He, however, submitted that since there was a delay of approximately 18 months in releasing the refund, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to interest at one percent per month on the amount of refund. The case was thereafter argued on October 31, 2012 and record of the revisional proceedings was called for on November 19, 2012.
(3.) THE only issue that survives for adjudication relates to the entitlement of the petitioner to the interest on delayed payment of refund to the petitioner.;