- (1.) THE writ petitioner is a works contractor. It is a dealer within the meaning of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. During the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, the petitioner entered into works contract with M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (Tisco ). The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, as enjoined by section 25a of the H Bihar Finance Act, deducted tax at source and deposited the same with the Sales Tax Department.
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , in the decision in the Builders Association of India v. State of Bihar [1992] 85 STC 362 (Pat.), section 25a of the Bihar Finance Act was struck down as unconstitutional. Though the Legislature amended the section, subsequent thereto, the amended provision was also declared ultra vires by the Court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Bihar [2000] 117 STC 41 (Pat.); (1999) 3 PLJR 960. According to the petitioner, it became entitled to refund of the tax deducted at source. It therefore made an application for refund on June 2, 1998. In terms of section 43 of the Bihar Finance Act, any amount refundable under the Act if not refunded within six months from the date of receipt of the application in that behalf from the dealer, shall carry interest at 9 per cent per annum with effect from the date of expiry of the period of six months. According to the petitioner it became entitled to interest on the amount to be refunded, at 9 per cent per annum from December 3, 1998.
(3.) SINCE the amount was not paid, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on February 14, 2003 inter alia, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State and the department, to refund the amount with interest thereon. Pending the writ petition, on February 22, 2003 refund vouchers were issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no interest was included in the refund vouchers. Meanwhile, the department also filed a counter-affidavit essentially taking the stand that time was taken for verifying the amount due to the writ petitioner and that was the reason for the delay in making the refund applied for on June 2, 1998. Since it was not a deliberate act on the part of the department, this Court may not direct payment of interest on the amount refunded, from December 2, 1998 till the date of issuance of the refund vouchers.;