IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17776 of 2009 M/S LANCO RANI JOINT VENTURE HAVING ITS PROJECT OFFICE AT PURNEA-GAYAKOTA SECTION OF N.H. -31 KISHANGANJ BIHAR THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE N. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O N. RAM CHANDRAIAH, LANCO RANI JOINT VENTURE, PLOT NO. 404, SOFTWARE UNITS LAY-OUT MADAPUR, DISTRICT- RAMAREDDI ( A.P.)………………………….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATLIPUTRA CIRCLE, PATNA 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, PATLIPUTRA CIRCLE, PATNA 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KISHANGANJ 6. THE TREASURY OFFICER, PATNA TREASURY, PATNA 7. THE TREASURY OFFICER, KISHANGANJ 8. THE NATIONAL HIGH WAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT PLOT NO. G-5 AND G-6, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI 110075 9. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGH WAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, SEVOKE ROAD, JYOTI NAGAR, NEAR DON-BOSCO SCHOOL SILIGURI, 734001( WEST BENGAL ) 10. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA MAIN BRANCH, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA……………………………………………RESPTS. ---------------- FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. PUSHKAR NARAIN SAHI, MR. SANJEET KR. SINGH & MR. ALOK KR. SHAHU,ADVOCATES FOR N. H. A I :- MR. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. LALIT KISHORE, AAG- I & MR. RABINDRA PRIYADARSHI, A.C. TO AAG-III --------------------- 4 17-1-2011 Heard the parties. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a 2 mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to issue to the petitioner treasury certificate and to pay all the refunds/ dues to it in respect of deductions made at source from their bills, as per provisions of the Bihar Finance Act and Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The deductions were made towards tax liability by National High Ways Authority of India for different assessment years. It is a matter of some satisfaction that admittedly Rs. 1,20,74,249/- has been paid to the petitioner by way of refund between January and March 2010. The respondents have claimed to have paid Rs.25,000/- more but the petitioner does not accept that in its reply to counter-affidavit. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, an amount of Rs.2,64,728/- , as per details mentioned in paragraphs 9-A and 10 of the writ petition, has been ignored and not paid by the authorities. Its grievance is that the amount of refund carries with it statutory interest at the rate of 6% per annum as provided under section 70 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act but the authorities have avoided to pay such statutory interest also and hence direction be issued to pay the amount of Rs.2,68,728/- and simple interest at the rate of 6% over the entire refund amount under section 3 70 of the Act noticed above. The petitioner, according to its calculation is entitled to a further amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of non-receipt of that amount, although according to the State this amount was also paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State wanted some more time to take instruction but in our view, the authorities have already paid substantial amount and the issue now relates to a small amount of Rs.2,64,000/- and odd ( as per claim ) and Rs.25,000/- ( on account of discrepancy) and interest as per provisions under section 70 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act which can easily be verified and settled by respondent no.2, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Bihar, Patna. Hence, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent no.2 to consider the aforesaid remaining claims of the petitioner noticed above and take a final decision on the basis of relevant materials on records within two months from the date of production/ communication of a copy of this order along with a representation giving necessary details. Whatever amount is found payable to the petitioner should be paid to its within one month from the date of decision. If any part of the claim 4 is not accepted then reasons for the same should be communicated to the petitioner in brief so that if so advised petitioner may pursue its claim before appropriate authority in accordance with law. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)