AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
After hearing Mr. Gangopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Maitra, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents, it appears that the only point requires adjudication by this Court at this stage is whether the petitioner should be given any interest on the amount deposited earlier or not. The Tribunal by passing the impugned order dated August 6, 2004 [Anil Kumar Todi v. A.C.C.T., Colootala Charge (Case No. 316 of 2004)] did not really enter into that aspect and refused to allow the interest though no ground was assigned for such refusal. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that the payment order has to be issued along with the demand notice where the excess amount of realisation of tax has been admitted, i.e., in form VII.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the court to various earlier decisions of this Court as well as the decisions of the Tribunal allowing such interest in the manner as sought for. But we do not find it necessary to deal with the said decisions in this case.
Mr. Maitra, learned counsel appearing for the State, has just pointed out that the petitioner can at best be given interest at the rate the banks are giving now in the savings bank account.
After due consideration of relevant facts and materials, we are, however, inclined to accept the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and having regard to the earlier stand of the division Bench of this Court in W.P.T.T. No. 24 of 2001 (printed infra), we think that the petitioner should be given interest at 6 per cent per annum.
The aforesaid amount of interest for the period from September 18, 1997 to October 8, 2004 be paid within three months from the date of communication of this order.
With the above observation this writ application is disposed of.
Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for be supplied on priority basis.