M/S Kahlon International v. State Of Punjab And Another

CWP-7700-2019 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7700-2019 Date of Decision: 20.3.2019 M/s Kahlon International, Ludhiana

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL.

PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

Through the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to issue refund of ` 1,13,759/- on account of interest on the delayed payment of VAT refund of ` 28,49,484/-. 2.

The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of nuts and bolts. It filed the returns for the financial years 2009-10, 2012-13, 2015-16 and 2016-17 along with the annual statement. The petitioner deducted tax at source while making payments. It had to pay advance tax on the goods purchased from outside the State of Punjab on the purchases made within the State of Punjab and was entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) of the tax paid to the seller. Since the petitioner was entitled to refund, it applied for refund in Form VAT 29. When the refund was not made, the petitioner filed CWP-14793-2018. This Court vide order dated 1.6.2018 GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.25 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (Annexure P-2) disposed of the said writ petition by directing respondent

CWP-7700-2019 -2No.2 to take a decision on the application for refund. The refund amount of ` 28,49,484/- was credited to the account of the petitioner but without any interest. Accordingly, the petitioner sent a letter dated 4.9.2018 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2 for the payment of interest on delayed VAT refund, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a letter dated 4.9.2018 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the letter dated 4.9.2018 (Annexure P-3), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 20, 2019 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.25 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document