LPA Nos. 33 and 34 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 33 of 2009 Date of decision 9.9.2009 M/s Sahil Builders ... Appellant Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Puneet Kansal,Advocate for the appellant Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG Punjab for respondents Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. In these two appeals bearing No.33 and 34 of 2009 filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the appellant- dealers challenge is to the judgement dated 18.8.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP Nos. 6499 of 2003 and 15198 of 2004. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the decision rendered in CWP No. 19579 of 2002 (M/s Keshob Plants v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others ). In Keshob Plant's case (supra), this Court has declared Section 10(C) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act') and Rule 25A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949 (for brevity 'the Rules') as unconstitutional. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The question which falls for determination in these appeals is LPA Nos. 33 and 34 of 2009 2 whether the appellant- dealer would be entitled to statutory interest from the date of deduction of tax in terms of Section 12(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act'). The matter is no longer res-integra as the similar issue involved in these petitions came up for consideration before this Division Bench in a bunch of appeals including the case of M/s Cobra Instalaciones Y Services v. State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 740 of 2009). In the concluding paras, the Division Bench has held as under: “A perusal of Section 12(3) of the Act would show that the amount is required to be refunded and if the refund is not made within 90 days of the date of the order then the dealer is to become entitled to get simple interest on such amount at the rate of one percent per month from the date immediately following the date of expiry of the said period for a period of one month and thereafter at the rate of one and a half per centum per month till the refund is made. The amount of refund has already been disbursed. The writ petitions were filed in the year 2005 and the refund has been made by the respondents on 7.3.2006 admittedly under Section 12 of the Act and according to the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act the delay in refund would attract the imposition of interest as per the rates specified in Section 12(3) of the Act. Accordingly there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that interest was payable to the dealer- appellant. As a sequel to the above discussion, the order dated 13.8.2008 of the learned Single Judge is supplemented LPA Nos. 33 and 34 of 2009 3 and modified to the extent that interest in terms of Section 12 (3) of the Act deserves to be awarded to the appellant- dealers. The order of the learned Single Judge passed on the applications on 20.7.2009 is set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the interest and disburse the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” In view of the above enunciation of law, the instant appeals are also disposed of in terms of the judgement in M/s Cobra Instalaciones Y Services's case (supra). In view of the disposal of the appeals on merit, all the pending applications are also disposed of. A copy of the order be placed on the file of each connected appeal. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 9.9.2009 Judge okg