CWP No.12675 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12675 of 2009 Date of Order: 25.9.2009 M/s Nimish International Spices, Majitha Mandi, Amritsar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J The petitioner is a proprietor firm. It has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to refund the penalty amount of Rs.63,000/- imposed under Section 14-B(7) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity “the Act”) vide order dated 9.3.1998, which has been deleted by the Appellate Authority. The aforesaid amount of penalty was deposited on 18.3.1998 by a demand draft. However, on 5.12.2000, the appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted and the Appellate Authority remanded the CWP No.12675 of 2009 #2# matter to the Assessing Authority by noticing the fact that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the petitioner before imposition of penalty. The Appellate Authority also issued direction for finalization of the matter within 60 days of the receipt of order dated 5.12.2000. In response to the notice of motion, written statement by respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been filed. In para 2 of the preliminary objection, respondents have taken the stand that order dated 5.12.2000 (Annexure P.1) was received by the Assessing Authority after about nine years on 31.8.2009. Thereafter, notice (Annexure R.3) for appearance was issued on 31.8.2009, which was served upon the petitioner on 1.9.2009 to appear on 3.9.2009. It is claimed that the petitioner did not appear on that date but a request (Annexure R.4) was received from the petitioner expressing its inability to appear on account of short time granted to it. Again similar request was made when another notice (Annexure R.6) was issued. In para 3 of the preliminary objection, however, the reason given for delay in deciding the remand matter by the Assessing Authority is that the Department has been re-organized and the order was not received by the Assessing Authority. Another ground taken is that the petitioner has not cooperated. The allegation has not been substantiated except the bald averment. Respondents have brought and handed over to the petitioner the refund voucher of Rs.63,000/- and the only question, which survives for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount of interest on the refund amount as the matter has not been finally decided by the Assessing Authority as per the direction issued by the Appellate Authority. CWP No.12675 of 2009 #3# We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to statutory interest in pursuance of provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act. The question of law raised in this case not res-integra. The same issue had arisen before a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Saurabh Kumar and Bros. v. State of Punjab (2001) 18 PHT 336 and statutory interest was awarded. When the learned state counsel was confronted with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court, she could not successfully distinguish the same either on facts or law. Accordingly, petition is disposed of with a direction that statutory interest in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act shall be paid by the respondents from 5.12.2000 till the date of payment. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE September 25, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE