IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 15730 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 16, 2009 Sukhwinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. A.K. Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The claim made by the petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of direction to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 16,25,295/- as determined by the Assessing Authority-respondent vide order dated 12.6.2009 (P-4) under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) in respect of the assessment year 2003-04. The prayer has also been made for payment of interest for the delay in making refund. In the short written statement filed by the Assessing Authority- respondent No. 2 it has been stated that the refund voucher amounting to Rs. 16,25,295/- has been issued to the petitioner on 9.12.2009. It has further C.W.P. No. 15730 of 2009 been clarified that the refund under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act is required to be allowed after prior approval of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner which is the prescribed authority and the approval was finally accorded on 30.11.2009. It has, thus, been claimed that no interest under sub-section (10) of Section 20 of the Act would be admissible to the petitioner. We asked Mr. Kamal Sehgal when the refund voucher was handed over to the petitioner. He has clarified that the refund voucher was sent to the petitioner but he was not available and then his son refused to accept the same. Mr. Sehgal states that the refund voucher is with him and he has handed over the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner. With regard to interest in terms of sub-section (10) of Section 20 of the Act, Mr. Sehgal has stated that after the amendment incorporated on 20.3.2009, the period of 60 days is to count from the date of approval accorded by the prescribed authority, which in the present case was Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The approval was accorded on 30.11.2009 and the refund voucher has been issued to the petitioner and handed over to his learned counsel within a period of 60 days and, therefore, no interest would accrue as there is no delay in terms of the amended provision. In view of the above, this petition is rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) December 16, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2