Telangana High Court
M/S. Kmc Constructions Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner Ct on 7 June, 2021
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao, T.Vinod Kumar
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA : HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION NO.20554 OF 2020
M/s. KMC Constructions Limited.
.. Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
DATE OF THE JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 07.06.2021
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the judgment?
______________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
________________
T.VINOD KUMAR, J
2 W.P.No20554 of.2020
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTSICE T.VINOD KUMAR
+ WRIT PETITION NO.20554 of 2020
% DATED 07th JUNE, 2021
# M/s. KMC Constructions Limited.
.. Petitioner
Vs.
$ The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
<Gist:
>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri J.V.Rao
^Counsel for Respondents : Sri M.Govind Reddy,
Spl.Standing Counsel
? CASES REFERRED:
1 (2009) 49 APSTJ Page 66=(2009) 25 VST 511 (AP)
2 (2009) 48 APSTJ 205 = (2009) 23 VST 573
3 (1988) 68 STC 177 (A.P.)
4 AIR 1962 SC 1893
5 (1992) Supp (1) SCC 443 = AIR 1992 SC 711
3 W.P.No20554 of.2020
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.20554 of 2020
O R D E R:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
This Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the respondents in
not granting refund of excess tax paid by the petitioner for the tax period
2011-12 and 2012-13, respectively, in a sum of Rs.4,44,62,188/-,
pursuant to the order dt. 18.02.2019, in T.A.No.176 of 2016 passed by
the Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short,
'the Tribunal').
2. The petitioner contends that aggrieved by the order dt. 30.05.2016
of the 2nd respondent, passed in excise of revisional powers conferred
under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, as
adopted by the State of Telangana (TVAT Act) (for short, 'the Act'), the
petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, numbered as
T.A.No.176 of 2016; that the said appeal was allowed in favour of the
petitioner on 18.02.2019, whereby the order of the revisional authority -
2nd respondent, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay tax at the
enhanced rate of 5%, as introduced w.e.f 15.09.2011, in respect of
ongoing works contracts as against the rate of tax of 4% having opted to
pay under the composition scheme provided under the Act, was set aside.
3. The petitioner further contends that, upon the appeal being
allowed by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent had passed consequential
order, by his proceedings, dt. 15.05.2019, termed as "Revised Assessment
Order" giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in T.A.No.176 of 2016, dt.
18.02.2019; that by the said revised assessment order, the total excess
4 W.P.No20554 of.2020
tax paid by the petitioner was determined in a sum of Rs.4,44,62,188/-;
upon such determination, the petitioner requested for grant of refund of
the excess amount of tax paid and had executed an Indemnity Bond
undertaking that the petitioner would refund the amount immediately on
receipt of demand, if it was detected that the petitioner is not entitled for
the said refund as sought for, and submitted the same with the 1st
respondent on 20.06.2019 for crediting the excess tax paid to the
petitioner's Bank account; and that despite regular follow up with the 1st
respondent, the amount of refund due to the petitioner in terms of the
revised assessment order has not been paid.
4. This Court, on 18.11.2020, ordered notice before admission to the
respondents, when the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents sought time to get instructions in the matter. On
02.012.2020 and 23.12.2020, time was sought for on behalf of the
respondents for filing counter. The case was again listed on 20.01.2021,
and as no counter was filed by the respondents, this Court taking note of
the admitted fact that the petitioner had been declared to be entitled to a
refund of Rs.4,44,62,188/-, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in
T.A.No.176 of 2016, granted one week time to the respondents to credit
the said refund amount to the bank account of the petitioner, failing
which, this Court directed for the appearance of the 2nd respondent.
5. However, the respondents did not credit the amount to the
petitioner's account as directed by this court, and instead, filed a counter
along with a vacate petition, on 26.01.2021. The said counter affidavit has
been deposed to by the 1st respondent. By the said counter filed, the
respondents sought to justify their action of not refunding the excess tax
amount determined to the petitioner, in pursuance of the revised
5 W.P.No20554 of.2020
assessment order, dt 15.05.2019, on the ground that the respondent-
revenue had preferred a Revision against the order of the Tribunal dt.
18.02.2019 to this Court under Section 34 of the Act and the same is
pending. In the counter filed, it is also stated that the 2nd respondent,
being the designated authority, in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 40(2) of the Act, vide proceedings in RC.No.A7/789/2019 dt.
28.11.2020, permitted the 1st respondent to withhold the refund; and that
the present Writ Petition has become infructuous and not maintainable.
6. On 28.01.2021, the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court,
when the counter along with the vacate petition filed by the 2nd
respondent was taken up. This Court, after taking note of the counter
filed, dispensed with the appearance of the 2nd respondent on the
subsequent dates, until further orders. Thereafter, the matter underwent
few adjournments at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties to enable them to sort out the issue.
7. After the matter was adjourned on 28.01.2021, the 1st respondent
filed a second counter affidavit, on 01.02.2021, wherein the 1st
respondent justified the action in not refunding the excess tax paid by the
petitioner as determined by the Revised assessment order on the ground
that the Revision preferred by the respondents to this Court in TREVC
No.29 of 2019 is pending consideration and before the said revision is
decided, if the amount of excess tax is refunded, the same would be
nothing but predicting the outcome of the decision, besides defeating the
purpose of filing of the Revision. By the said counter, the 1st respondent
also claimed that a letter dt. 09.09.2019 was addressed by him to the 2nd
respondent, who, in turn, addressed a letter, dt. 05.11.2020, to the 3rd
respondent recommending to withhold the refund due to the infractions
6 W.P.No20554 of.2020
on the part of the assessee as noted therein. Based on the report
furnished by the 1st and 2nd respondents, it is stated that the 3rd
respondent approved the recommendation to withhold the refund on
28.11.2020 and the same was informed to the assessee on 02.12.2020.
8. Upon the said counter along with the annexures being filed into
this Court, the petitioner contended that the claim of the 1st respondent in
the counter affidavit that various tax amounts are due from the petitioner
as one of the reason for withholding the excess tax paid, is in fact an
incorrect statement, since the amounts which are being shown as due
and payable have either been annulled by higher authorities' orders or
have already been recovered by the 1st respondent by issuing garnishee
proceedings in the form of attachment from a third party, viz., National
Highways Authority of India, Delhi, even before he forwarded the letter
dt. 09.092019 to the 2nd respondent and thus, the invocation of provisions
of Section 40(2) of the Act by the respondents to deny the refund due to
the petitioner is wholly unjustified.
9. The 1st respondent thereafter filed a third counter affidavit sworn to
on 12.02.2021, wherein he had stated that the reason stated by him in his
letter dt. 09.09.2019 seeking approval for withholding the refund under
Section 40(2) of the Act, is on the ground that there were certain
payments due from the petitioner. He claimed that he failed to mention
that these demands have been collected, on the account of assessee, by
taking recourse to third party attachment and he failed to mention the
same due to oversight. By the third counter affidavit, while admitting that
the amounts which are claimed to be due from the petitioner have been
recovered, the 1st respondent however sought to justify the action in not
refunding the excess tax determined, on the ground that in the event the
7 W.P.No20554 of.2020
Revision filed before this Court goes against the petitioner, it would
become difficult for the Government to recover the amount refunded
based on the previous demeanor of the petitioner.
10. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M. Govind Reddy,
learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
11. Firstly, the practice of filing multiple counters by the respondents,
without seeking leave of the Court for filing such additional counters as
and when the claims made in the counter affidavit filed are shown to be
incorrect, cannot be countenanced. The respondents owe a duty to this
Court to verify the records thoroughly before they depose to the counter
affidavit and place all the material along with the counter so that the
pleadings are complete and not by doing a piecemeal job, to ensure
judicial time of the Court is not wasted by adjourning the matter. This is
of further importance particularly in matters involving financial
implications, as any omission would cause loss to the State exchequer and
similarly, a tax payer - citizen is entitled to the amounts due to it in timely
manner, so as to arrange its affairs.
12. The 1st respondent, while in the first counter sought to justify his
action of not refunding the excess tax paid as determined on the ground
of pendency of TREVC, by the second counter affidavit filed, sought to
justify such non-payment, on the ground that there are certain tax
amounts due from the petitioner. The time gap between the first and
second counter affidavits as deposed to by the 1st respondent is of five
days i.e. 25.01.2021 and 30.01.2021. Thereafter, within further gap of
13 days, the 1st respondent filed another counter affidavit stating that due
to oversight he has failed to mention that the amounts which are claimed
8 W.P.No20554 of.2020
to be due from the petitioner as a ground seeking approval from the 2nd
respondent for withholding refund by invoking the powers conferred
under Section 40(2) of the Act, vide letter dt. 09.09.2019, have in fact
been recovered by way of garnishee proceedings issued to third parties.
From the material placed before this Court, it is evident that the amounts
which the 1st respondent had claimed as due from the petitioner have in
fact been paid and acknowledging the receipt, the 1st respondent himself
had withdrawn Garnishee notices, long before letter dt. 09.09.2019 was
addressed to the 2nd respondent. This only goes to show the casual and
callous approach of the 1st respondent in dealing with finances of the
State as well as of tax payer - citizen, casting an apprehension on the
capabilities of the 1st respondent to be a tax administrator, which power is
bestowed on him.
13. Though it is claimed that the 1st respondent having addressed letter
dt. 09.09.2019 to the 2nd respondent indicating therein the reasons for
withholding the refund, the 2nd respondent did not choose to take any
action thereon by according approval by forming an opinion independently
of the recommendations of the 1st respondent. However, on 05.11.2020,
the 2nd respondent has forwarded the said proposal received from the 1st
respondent to the 3rd respondent - Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
requesting the 3rd respondent to permit to withhold the refund under
Section 40(2) of the Act read with Rule 59(1)(13)(iv) of the Telangana
Value Added Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules'), since the refund is more
than Rs.10,00,000/-. The communication dt. 05.11.2020 addressed by the
2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent has not been placed before this
Court.
9 W.P.No20554 of.2020
14. In the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, vide CCT
Reference No.A(1)/90/2019 dt. 28.11.2020, the ground on which the 2nd
respondent requested to permit to withhold the refund, is stated as -
"The department has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court
of Telangana in TREVC No.29 of 2019, in consonance to the judgment of
the AP High Court in W.P.No.4977, dt 24.07.2019 between BSNL V/s.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH". The 3rd respondent by the proceedings
dt. 28.11.2020, referred herein above, having regard to the powers
conferred under Section 40(2) of the Act, formed an opinion that the
"grant of refund is likely to affect the revenue adversely, the authority
prescribed may withhold the refund till such time by the prescribed
authority for withholding of refunds under Section 40(2)", and permitted
the 2nd respondent to withhold the refund.
15. Perusal of the proceedings dt 28.11.2020 issued by the 3rd
respondent, does not indicate any material fact having been considered by
the said authority independent of the recommendation of the 1st
respondent as forwarded by the 2nd respondent, to form an opinion that
the grant of refund would affect the revenue adversely, for according
permission to withhold the refund. On the other hand, the proceeding dt.
28.11.2020, except mentioning the preferring of TREVC No.29 of 2019
and extracting the provisions of Section 40(2) of the Act and Rule 59(1) of
the Rules, does not indicate any independent opinion being formed by the
3rd respondent for according permission to the 2nd respondent to withhold
the refund.
16. A reading of Section 40(2) of the Act shows that the authority
prescribed in order to withhold the refund is required to form an opinion
that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the Revenue.
10 W.P.No20554 of.2020
However, the proceeding dt. 28.11.2020 is conspicuously absent of any
such opinion being formed by the prescribed authority, who in this case is
the Commissioner - 3rd respondent.
17. The endeavor and effort on the part of the respondents in not
granting refund to the petitioner appears solely to be on the ground of
pendency of the Revision before this Court. Merely because the decision
rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable to the respondents and they
having preferred a Revision to this Court, the respondents cannot grant to
themselves stay of operation of the order of the Tribunal by such non
refund. Though such a power is vested with the authority under Section
40(2) of the Act, the same is required to be exercised by the prescribed
authority by recording reasons and not on the ground of mere pendency
of TREVC.
18. It is to be noted that the issue of withholding of refund by invoking
and exercising power under Section 40(2) of the Act on account of
pendency of Tax Revision Case, is no longer res integra. A Division Bench
of this Court in BSNL V/s. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH1, had
elaborately considered the scope of Section 40(2) of the Act, the
circumstances in which the refund can be withheld and held that :
"19. Though Section 40(2) of the AP VAT Act empowers the
concerned authority to withhold the amount of refund, such power is
not unfretted power vesting with the concerned officer of the
revenue. Once the said power is given to an authority, such power
has to be exercised with discretion. There must be sound reasons for
which the amount payable to an assessee - citizen is to be withheld."
"20. Though there is no provision in the Section that reasons
should be recorded for withholding the amount of refund, in our
opinion, it becomes obligatory on the part of the Deputy
1 (2009) 49 APSTJ Page 66=(2009) 25 VST 511 (AP)
11 W.P.No20554 of.2020
Commissioner to record reasons before according approval for
withholding the amount of refund."
This Court further held that:
"21. In normal circumstances, once the assessee succeeds in the
litigation, the respondent authorities are bound to refund the amount
of tax, which was collected from the assessee. Simply, because an
appeal is filed, the authorities would not be empowered to withhold
the amount of refund. So as to see that interest of the State is
protected, the Legislature has enacted Section 40(2) of the AP VAT
Act, but the power granted to withhold the amount vested with the
assessing officer has to be exercised with the approval of the Deputy
Commissioner. Before granting approval, the Deputy Commissioner,
in our opinion, is duty bound to consider the facts of the case and
record the reasons for which he would like to give his approval for
withholding payment of the amount belonging to the assessee. The
reasons must be just and proper."
"22. The Deputy Commissioner must come to the conclusion
that by not withholding the amount of refund, the State would be
adversely affected because the State might not be in a position to
recover the said amount. The assessee is doing well in business for
several years, he is having sufficient assets and there is no possibility
of the assessee vanishing into the air without making payment of tax,
in our opinion, the Deputy Commissioner, cannot give his approval
for withholding the refund. In any case, the Deputy Commissioner
must record reasons before granting approval so that in the event of
decision of the Deputy Commissioner being challenged, the higher
authority or the concerned Court can look into the justification given
by the Deputy Commissioner for giving an opinion for withholding
payment of the amount belonging to the assessee."
"24. The Deputy Commissioner, or, in the instant case, the
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, must form an opinion that the
grant of refund "is likely to adversely affect the revenue". For forming
such an opinion, he must consider all relevant facts and record the
reasons. In the instant case, no reason has been recorded by the
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes before granting his approval."
"In our opinion, mere filing an appeal or revision would not
justify the revenue to withhold the payment of refund under the
provisions of Section 40(2) of the A.P. Vat Act. There must be some
other factor which would weigh against the assessee which the
12 W.P.No20554 of.2020
respondent authorities want to exercise their power under Section
40(2) of the A.P. Vat Act."
19. The facts in the present case are no different. The 2nd respondent,
basing on the inputs received as sent by the 1st respondent, vide letter dt.
09.09.2019, had requested the 3rd respondent to accord permission to
withhold the refund due to the petitioner, and the 3rd respondent, by
proceedings dt. 28.11.2020 noting the pendency of the TREVC and the
provisions of Section 40(2) of the Act and Rule 59 of the Rules, granted
such permission to withhold. No material is placed before this Court to
show that either the 2nd respondent or the 3rd respondent, dehors the
report of the 1st respondent, considered any other relevant material facts
for forming an opinion that grant of refund would adversely affect the
Revenue for seeking or according the permission, as the case may be. The
exercise of power under Section 40 of the Act, in the above manner, by
the 3rd respondent, or the 2nd respondent, would only show that there is
no independent application of mind by either of the authorities, and
without assigning any valid reason, the prescribed authority has accorded
approval by exercising powers under Section 40(2) of the Act, merely
based on the inputs provided by the 1st respondent. Such a course of
action by the 3rd and 2nd respondents cannot be held to be correct, so as
to stand judicial scrutiny.
20. In the facts of the present case, such independent consideration by
the 2nd or 3rd respondents was necessary, having regard to the fact that,
in the third counter affidavit deposed to by the 1st respondent, it is stated
that he had failed to mention about the amounts, which are claimed to be
due from the petitioner as a ground for recommending to withhold the
refund, have already been recovered by initiation of Garnishee
13 W.P.No20554 of.2020
proceedings from the third parties. Since, the 2nd and 3rd respondents
have acted on such recommendation of the 1st respondent, who has failed
to discharge his function as a tax administrator, the action of the 2nd and
3rd respondents in approving such recommendation of the 1st respondent,
is no less a failure and the 3rd respondent had acted in abdication of the
powers conferred on the said authority under the Act.
21. Despite this Court interpreting analogous provision under the
erstwhile Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, in the case of
PULP N' PACK PRIVATE LIMITED V/s. COMMERCIAL TAX
OFFICER2, and holding that the prescribed authority assessing is
required to exercise power independent of the recommendations of the
authority, the respondents continue to adopt the approach of merely
approving the recommendations of the assessing authority, which
practice has been deprecated by this Court in the BSNL's case (supra),
while dealing with the provisions of Section 40(2) of the Act. The above
said decisions of this Court binds the authorities in the State, under Article
215 of the Constitution of India, being a Court of record, any
disobedience in not following the law laid down by this Court, would
amount to contempt of this Court being committed.
22. A Division Bench of this court in STATE OF A.P. V/s.
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER3 by referring to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. V/s.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS4, wherein in para 29 of the judgement of
Subba Rao,J. ( as his Lordship then was) speaking for the majority held -
2 (2009) 48 APSTJ 205 = (2009) 23 VST 573
3 (1988) 68 STC 177 (A.P.)
4 AIR 1962 SC 1893
14 W.P.No20554 of.2020
"We therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest court in the
State is binding on authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence,
and that they cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding or
deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding".
in paras 15 and 16 of the judgement held that -
"If any authority or Tribunal refuses to follow any decision of this
Court on the above grounds it would be clearly guilty of committing
contempt of this Court and is liable to be proceeded against.
16. We have come across innumerable instances where the
authorities below, especially authorities entrusted with the collection
of taxes and excise duties, refused to follow the decisions of this
Court on the ground that appeals were either filed or steps were
being taken to file appeals, and raised fantastic tax demands and
initiated proceedings for recovery of such taxes. The result was that
this Court was flooded with innumerable writ petitions. We need
hardly observe that all this is totally irregular and should have been
avoided. We cannot help putting on notice all the authorities
concerned that this Court would not hesitate to take stern action for
contempt if decisions of this Court are disregarded unless the
operation of the judgments of this Court is suspended by the
Supreme Court".
23. Another aspect of the matter which also goes to show that the
action of the 3rd respondent in seeking to accord approval to withhold
refund is an afterthought, is evident from the fact that the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition on 12.11.2020, after serving copy of the
same on the learned Standing Counsel as required under the Writ Rules of
this Court. It is upon the petitioner approaching this Court and filing the
above Writ Petition, the respondents have set in motion the process of
according approval to withhold the refund by invoking Section 40(2) of the
Act, as admittedly, the proceeding of the 3rd respondent is dt. 28.11.2020,
- viz., 15 days after the filing of the Writ Petition, and after 'Notice Before
Admission' was ordered by this Court, and the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents sought time to get instructions in the
15 W.P.No20554 of.2020
matter on 18.11.2020. Thus, till 18.11.2020, the 3rd respondent had
admittedly not exercised powers under Section 40(2) of the Act and could
not have issued proceedings on 28.11.2020, while this Court is seized of
the matter. On the basis of such approval accorded by the 3rd respondent,
the 1st respondent had, in one of the counter affidavits audaciously stated
that since, permission under Section 40(2) of the Act, has been accorded,
the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The said submission of the 1st
respondent is not bonafide, but it is malafide. The endeavor on the part
of the 3rd respondent in according sanction to withhold refund by
proceedings dt. 28.11.2020, thus, clearly appears to frustrate and make
infructuous the Writ Petition filed before this Court, which action of the 3rd
respondent cannot be countenanced and calls for being admonished.
24. Further, the above acts of the respondents are also not in
consonance with their "Mission Statement" which states that - "The
Commercial Taxes department endeavours to transform itself into an
enterprise friendly entity and progressive tax administration with focus on
greater transparency, fairness and firmness to achieve highest tax
efficiency through the use of information Technology combined with best
tax practices".
25. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the action of the 1st
respondent in falsely deposing to the counter affidavits filed into this
Court as an act of perjury; that the proceeding dt. 28.11.2020 issued by
the 3rd respondent without independent exercise of mind and recording
reasons therein, as held to be mandatory by this Court in PULP N' PACK
PRIVATE LIMITED and BSNL's cases (supra) cannot be sustained,
apart from being in contempt, liable to be proceeded against. Further,
even the infractions, as recorded by the 1st respondent vide letter dt.
16 W.P.No20554 of.2020
09.09.2019, seeking permission to withhold the refund under Section
40(2) of the Act, are unacceptable.
26. This Court is conscious of the fact that the observations made
herein above would not be palatable to the respondents, as they claim to
be acting in the larger interest of the State. However, it is apposite to
refer to the observation of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA V/s.
KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.5, wherein in para 8 it
was held -
"8. We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has
been suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the
observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the
officers. It is clear that the observations of the High Court,
seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalatable to the Revenue, are
only intended to curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if
allowed to become widespread, could result in considerable
harassment to the assessee-public without any benefit to the
Revenue. We would like to say that the department should take
these observations in the proper spirit. The observations of the High
Court should be kept in mind in future and the utmost regard should
be paid by the adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorities
to the requirements of judicial discipline and the need for giving
effect to the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are
binding on them".
27. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the
respondents are hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,44,62,188/-
as determined by the 1st respondent under Revised Assessment Order dt.
15.05.2019, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dt. 18.02.2019, by
crediting the above said amount to the petitioner's bank account, within
15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with
interest due thereon at the rate of 1% per month, as provided under
Section 39 of the Act, till the date of credit of the said amount; if the
5 (1992) Supp (1) SCC 443 = AIR 1992 SC 711.
17 W.P.No20554 of.2020
amount is not paid within two weeks as specified above, the amount of
further interest which might have to be paid after the above said period
shall be recovered from the respondents for causing delay, as the State
exchequer should not suffer further on account of the actions of the
respondents; and the respondents shall pay costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) to the petitioner.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
_____________________
JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
Date: 07.06.2021
Note:
L.R. Copy to be marked
(B/o) GJ
