IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15361 of 2009 1. M/S OM ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI BHAGWATI LAL S/O SRI MOHAN LAL MOH SIKANDAPUR, P.S. TOWN, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES MUZAFFARPUR CIRCLE (EAST), DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES MUZAFFARPUR CIRCLE, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 3. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER MUZAFFARPUR CIRCLE, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 3 08-12-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG 3 appearing for the State. The petitioner had applied for refund of Rs. 85,307.70/- through his application dated 7-2-2004 as evidenced by annexures- 3 and 3/1. The refund was on account of valid order of assessment of the Commercial Taxes authorities. It is a matter of satisfaction that once the writ petition was filed, within no time, as appears from paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit the said amount has been refunded through a payment order dated 1-12-2009. This shows remarkable improvement in the performance of the machinery dealing with such refunds. Earlier in some writ petitions directions had to be issued on several occasions and then only the authorities could collect the relevant facts for allowing refunds. The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner now is that of interest as provided u/s 43 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. As per that section the amount refundable is required to be refunded within six months from the date of receipt of the application from the dealer or person concerned and if it is 2 not refunded within that period of six months, for the remaining period till payment the amount is to carry interest at the rate of 9%. Learned counsel for the State submits that a perusal of petitioner’s application in annexure-3 shows that some particulars such as challan number were not mentioned although the same is prescribed in form- XX. This according to learned counsel for the State was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and hence, his claim for interest should not be entertained. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the form was not filled up as required, the authorities should have asked the petitioner to remove the defect but that was never done. Considering the aforesaid submissions in respect of interest, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served if the authorities are directed to pay 50% of the due interest calculated as per Section 43 noticed above, within a period of three months from today. We order accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)