THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18646 of 2002 June 21, 2011 Between: M/s.Pals Distilleries Limited, Vijayawada Branch Represented by its Financial Controller, U.K.Prasad ... Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Benz Circle, Vijayawada ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18646 of 2002 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner company engaged in the business of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, is a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act) on the rolls of the respondent. For the years 1984-85 to 1987-88 the petitioner’s business was assessed. The sale value of cartons as well as bottles was subjected to tax. The petitioner went in appeal. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Sheel v State of Andhra Pradesh[1], the Appellate Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal. Be it also noted that by the time appeal was allowed, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.374, dated 02.5.1991 to the effect that the cartons and bottles involved in liquor shall be taxed as per Entry-19 and 123 of the 1st Schedule to the Act. Subsequently, it appears, the Government clarified the order, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.374, to the effect that the earlier notification would come into force on 02.5.1991. As a consequence thereof, the assessing authority reassessed the turnover adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner again went in appeal and was successful. Consequent to the appellate order dated 24.1.2000 the respondent issued proceedings dated 23.2.2001 determining the amount of Rs.1,12,456.79 ps as excess tax paid by the petitioner. The petitioner then prayed for refund of the amount, in vain. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to refund the amount along with interest at 12% per annum as provided under Sections 33E and 33F of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the claim of the petitioner is not seriously opposed. However it is stated that Rs.17,695/- , being the arrears of sales tax, was adjusted out of the refund amount; the authorized representative of the petitioner filed a letter dated 20.10.2002 expressing willingness to withdraw the present writ petition and waive the claim for interest and, therefore; it is not open to claim interest. The Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner has received refund, as per the proceedings of the respondent dated 23.2.2001. The only dispute is with regard to payment of interest for the delayed period. The Special Counsel would contend that, when the petitioner has waived the right to claim interest, a direction cannot be issued. As rightly pointed out by him, it is a disputed question of fact. Therefore, we are not inclined to determine the issue whether or not the petitioner has waived the right to claim interest. We, however, give liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent with his claim for interest. In such an event, the respondent shall consider the request in accordance with law keeping in view the letter statedly given by the petitioner or on his behalf on 20.10.2002. The writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) June 21, 2011 YS [1] (1989) 74 STC 379 (SC)