Page No.# 1/25

GAHC010218532021

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

WP(C) No.4240/2022

M/S Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries

…

Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Assam & 4 Others

…Respondents.

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. G. Rahul, Advocate

Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. B. Choudhury, SC. Taxes

With

WP(C) No.4463/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia

…Petitioner.

Versus

M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another

…Respondents. Page No.# 1/25

GAHC010218532021

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

WP(C) No.4240/2022

M/S Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries

…

Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Assam & 4 Others

…Respondents.

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. G. Rahul, Advocate

Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. B. Choudhury, SC. Taxes

With

WP(C) No.4463/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia

…Petitioner.

Versus

M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another

…Respondents.

Page No.# 2/25

With

WP(C) No.4465/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia

…Petitioner.

Versus

M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another

…Respondents.

With

WP(C) No.5968/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia

…Petitioner.

Versus

M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another

…Respondents.

With

WP(C) No.5969/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia

…Petitioner.

Versus

M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another

…Respondents.

Page No.# 3/25

With

WP(C) No.5970/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia

…Petitioner.

Versus

M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries

…Respondent.

With

WP(C) No.6002/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia

…Petitioner.

Versus

M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another

…Respondents.

Page No.# 4/25

With

WP(C) No.6003/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia

…Petitioner.

Versus

M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another

…Respondents.

With

WP(C) No.6018/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia

…Petitioner.

Versus

M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries

…Respondent.

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. B. Choudhury, SC. Taxes

Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. G. Rahul, Advocate

Page No.# 5/25

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025

Date of Judgment : 21.01.2025

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the Finance and Taxation Department of the

Government of Assam who appears on behalf of the petitioners

in WP(C) No.4463/2024; WP(C) No.4465/2024; WP(C)

No.5968/2024; WP(C) No.5969/2024; WP(C) No.5970/2024;

WP(C) No.6002/2024; WP(C) No.6003/2024 and WP(C)

No.6018/2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the batch of writ

petitions’). Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.4240/2022. The writ petitioner

in WP(C) No.4240/2022 is the respondent in the batch of writ

petitions wherein Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appears for

the respondent.

2. The batch of writ petitions so filed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia as petitioner is intrinsically

connected to the writ petition filed by the petitioner in WP(C)

No.4240/2022, and as such, all the writ petitions are taken up for

disposal together.

Page No.# 6/25

3. The facts which led to the filing of the writ petitions are

narrated infra.

The petitioner in WP(C) No.4240/2022 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the petitioner firm’) is a proprietorship firm having its

principal place of business at Tinsukia, Assam is engaged in the

business of bottling and trading in Indian Made Foreign Liquor

(for short, ‘IMFL’) The said firm sales its goods both within the

State of Assam and also to various other States in India. The

petitioner firm is registered under the provisions of the Assam

Excise Act, 1910; the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as well as the

Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the Act of 2003’).

4. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Central VAT Audit Cell

who is the respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.4240/2022 had

assessed the petitioner firm under Section 36 of the Act of 2003

for the assessment years 2005-2006; 2006-2007; 2007-2008 and

2008-2009 and passed assessment orders dated 22.03.2011;

15.07.2011; 25.07.2011 and 20.09.2011 respectively. For the

sake of convenience, the following Chart would show as regards

the Assessment Years, Net Demand and Date Of Assessment

which is mentioned herein under:-

Page No.# 7/25

5. The petitioner firm being aggrieved preferred revision

applications under Section 82(2) of the Act of 2003 in respect to

each and every impugned assessment orders. The petitioner firm

deposited 25% of the disputed amount for the assessment year

2005-06 as a pre-deposit. In respect to the other assessment

years, i.e. 2006-07; 2007-08 and 2008-09, the petitioner firm

deposited 20% of the principal amount plus Rs.35 lakhs for each

assessment year as would appear from the directions passed by

this Court in various writ petitions.

6. The record reveals that upon making the pre-deposits, the

revision petitions filed by the petitioner firm were admitted. The

Revisional Authority vide two detailed orders dated 26.02.2020

allowed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner firm for the

periods 2005-06; 2006-07; 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the

jurisdictional Assessing Officer was directed to pass fresh

assessment orders within 30 days in the light of the observations

made in the said common orders dated 26.02.2020.

Assessment Year Net Demand Date of

Assessment

2005-2006 Rs.20,300,251/-22.03.2011

2006-2007 Rs.6,54,93,675/-15.07.2011

2007-2008 Rs.10,16,25,172/-25.07.2011

2008-2009 Rs.21,20,72,683/- 20.09.2011

Page No.# 8/25

7. The petitioner firm, on the basis of the orders dated

26.02.2020 sought refund of the amounts which the petitioner

firm deposited as pre-deposits. Various representations were

submitted for refund of the said amount. However, the said

amount so deposited was not refunded. On the other hand, on

18.11.2021, the respondent No.5 had issued a show cause notice

asking the petitioner firm to show cause as to why the

application for the refund should not be rejected as irregular and

incorrect and why it should not be held that the petitioner firm

was intentionally interfering with the decision of the Department

to file Appeal(s) against the order of revision dated 26.02.2020

which quashed the assessment orders. Being aggrieved by the

inaction on the part of the respondents in WP(C) No.4240/2022

to refund the pre-deposits and further assailing the show cause

notice dated 18.11.2021, the petitioner firm approached this

Court by filing the writ petition which has been registered and

numbered as WP(C) No.4240/2022.

8. It is relevant to take note of that this Court vide an order

dated 24.06.2022 issued notice and observed that the pendency

of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the respondents to

return the pre-deposits made by the petitioner while preferring

the revision applications in terms with the orders dated

26.02.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam

Page No.# 9/25

as per their entitlement, following the due procedure of law and

if there is no impediment in releasing the same.

9. The record reveals that on 31.07.2024, when the matter was

listed before this Court, it was informed that the Appeals have

been filed before the learned Assam Board of Revenue against

the order dated 26.02.2020. It was further submitted that as the

learned Assam Board of Revenue did not have the quorum, the

appeals have not been taken up for consideration. Under such

circumstances, this Court made a query upon the learned

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance and

Taxation Department of Assam as is reflected in the order dated

31.07.2024 as to whether the respondent authorities can hold on

to the amount which is liable to be refunded, that too without

there being any order staying the refund to the petitioner firm.

In addition to that, this Court further enquired as to whether

non-refunding the amount to which the petitioner firm is entitled

would require interest to be paid by the State respondents.

10. When the matter was again listed before this Court on

01.10.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance and

Taxation Department of the Government of Assam had submitted

an instruction issued by the Commissioner of Taxes to the effect

that there being no fresh assessment made as per the revisional

orders dated 26.02.2020, and as such, without the fresh

Page No.# 10/25

assessment orders being made, the question of granting any

refund does not arise. On the basis of the said submission, this

Court observed as recorded in the order dated 01.10.2024 that

the petitioner firm had initially submitted self assessment.

Subsequent thereto, an audit assessment were carried out

wherein various assessment orders were passed in respect to

various financial years. These assessment orders have been set

aside and quashed and thereby directing the Assessing Officer to

pass appropriate order giving effect to the revisional orders

dated 26.02.2020. The revisional order dated 26.02.2020 had not

been stayed in any proceedings, and as such, the Assessing

Officer was bound to follow the orders dated 26.02.2020 giving

effect to the directions passed therein. Under such

circumstances, this Court had put a query upon Mr. B.

Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance and

Taxation Department that taking into account that giving effect

to the orders dated 26.02.2020 and passing fresh assessment

orders being not done within a particular period as to whether

the same would not be contrary to the provisions of the Act of

2003 which categorically prescribes a period within which the

order of assessments were to be passed, i.e. 30 days. The

learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance and

Taxation Department sought for time, and accordingly, the

Page No.# 11/25

matter was listed on 05.11.2024.

11. When the matter was again listed on 05.11.2024, it was

informed that various writ petitions have been filed by the

Assessing Officer challenging the revisional orders dated

26.02.2020 passed in respect to the Act of 2003 and Central

Sales Tax Act, 1956. Accordingly, taking into account that the

instant writ petition being WP(C) No.4240/2022 was intrinsically

connected with the batch of writ petitions challenging the

revisional orders dated 26.02.2020, this Court vide an order

dated 05.11.2024 had tagged all these writ petitions together.

12. A perusal of the contents of the batch of writ petitions so

filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia, who is

the Assessing Officer challenging the revisional orders dated

26.02.2020 would show that the challenge is made primarily on

the non-compliance of a Circular bearing No.15/2010 issued by

the Commissioner of Taxes dated 23.08.2010.

13. Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appearing

on behalf of the Finance and Taxation Department of the

Government of Assam submitted that on account of an

apprehension that many dealers may show local sale at inter-

State sale thereby evading sales tax at a rate of 27% over and

above the excise duty payable whereby the State would be losing

Page No.# 12/25

substantial amount of revenue, a circular was issued being

Circular No.15/2010 dated 23.08.2010 whereby it was impressed

upon all concerned to conduct thorough VAT audit of such cases.

The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that in terms

with the said Circular, the officers who are appointed to assist the

Commissioner of Taxes in terms with Section 3 of the Act of 2003

should not only rely upon ‘C’ forms produced by the dealer but

should also make necessary verification of actual movement of

the goods. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that

it was an incumbent duty upon all the officers to look and verify

the receipt of payment of the goods, proof of despatch, proof of

payment of freight to the transporter, proof of movement

through concerned check post, relevant excise documents of

importing State and Assam may be insisted upon. The learned

Standing Counsel submitted that the revisional authority did not

take into those aspects of the matter while passing the impugned

order dated 26.02.2020, and it is under such circumstances, the

Government is now faced to lose a substantial amount of money

on account of VAT.

14. Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner firm as well as the respondent in the batch of writ

petitions filed by the Assessing Officer submitted that a perusal

of the order dated 26.02.2020 would show that the Revisional

Page No.# 13/25

Authority had made each and every verification while passing the

impugned order. He submitted that the Revisional Authority had

taken into account the communications which have been issued

by the Tax Authorities of the States of Arunachal Pradesh and

Nagaland which constitute 95% of the inter-State sales. He

further submitted that, in addition to that, the respective excise

ledgers and challans have also been duly taken note of. The

learned counsel submitted that as this Court is exercising the

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court would

only see as to whether the decision of the Revisional Authority

stood vitiated on the ground of irrelevant and extraneous

consideration. He further submitted that the pre-deposits so

submitted was for the purpose of admission of the revision

petitions and was not a duty paid, and under such

circumstances, with the revisional applications being allowed it

was incumbent upon the respondents/the State Taxation

Authorities to refund the said amount. He submitted that the

delay which has been caused had resulted in tremendous

financial implication upon the petitioner firm, and as such,

interest at the rate of 15% should at least be awarded as a

compensatory measure for the illegally withholding to the pre-

deposit amounts. In that regard, the learned counsel has

referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Page No.# 14/25

Union of India vs. Suvidhe Ltd. reported in (2016) 11 SCC 808 as

well as the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs

(Import), Rigad vs. Finacord Chemicals (P) Limited & Others,

reported in (2015)15 SCC 4697.

15. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance

and Taxation Department submitted that the State has

challenged the revisional order, and as such, as the matter is

pending before this Court for which the question of payment of

any interest does not arise.

16. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing

on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on records.

For deciding the entitlement of the petitioner firm, this Court first

would like to deal with the batch of writ petitions filed by the

Assessing Officer, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes,

Tinsukia. The batch of writ petitions filed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia challenges the common

revisional orders dated 26.02.2020 passed in respect to the Act

of 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 primarily on the

ground of non-compliance to the Circular No.15/2010. Taking

into account the importance of the said Circular, the contents of

the said Circular is reproduced herein under:-

Page No.# 15/25

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONGR OF TAXES: ASSAM: GUWAHATI

(Circular No. 15/2010)

No. CTS-81/2007/296 Dated Dispur, the 23

rd

August, 2010,

Sub: Inter-state sale made by the Bonded Warehouse.

It has come to notice that many bonded warehouses are showing

inter-state sale of liquor. It is apprehended that many such dealer may be

showing local sale as inter-state sale thereby evading sales tax 27% over

and above the excise duty payable. In such a scenario the State is losing

substantial amount of revenue.

It is, therefore, impressed upon all concerned to conduct thorough

VAT audit of such cases. The officers should not only rely upon ‘C’ forms

produced by the dealer. It is necessary to verify actual movement of

goods. In such cases, proof of receipt of payment of goods, proof of

despatch, proof of payment of freight to the transporter, proof of

movement through concerned Checkpost, relevant excise documents of

importing State and Assam may be insisted upon.

In cases where VAT audit has already been completed without

taking into consideration above-mentioned checks the Deputy

Commissioners of Taxes of Zones may take up suo-moto revision. The

Deputy Commissioner of Taxes of Zones shall collect list of bonded

warehouse zone-wise where VAT audit has been completed without such

detailed verification.

The Zonal Deputy Commissioners of Taxes will submit a detailed

Page No.# 16/25

report of audit assessments already done and under process within one

month without fail.

( Sanjay Lohiya ),

Commissioner of Taxes, Assam,

Guwahati.

17. From a perusal of the said Circular, it is seen that the said

Circular had been issued upon all concerned who have been

empowered to conduct thorough VAT audit of cases pertaining to

dealers who are involved in inter-State sale of liquor. It was

mentioned that the officer should not only rely upon ‘C’ form

produced by the dealer but it is also necessary for them to verify

actual movement of the goods. To ascertain the same, the

verification is required to be made by assertaining the proof of

receipt of the payment of goods, proof of despatch, proof of

payment of freight to the transporter, proof of movement

through concerned check posts, relevant excise documents of

importing State and Assam be also insisted upon. It is further

mentioned in the said Circular that in cases where VAT audit has

been completed without taking into consideration the

aforementioned checks, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes of

the Zones may take a suo-moto revision. Therefore, from a

perusal of the said Circular, it is seen that the same is in respect

to conducting VAT audit by the concerned Assessing Officers in

terms of Section 36 of the Act of 2003.

Page No.# 17/25

18. For understanding the said aspect of the matter, this Court

had put a specific query upon Mr. B Choudhury, the learned

Standing Counsel of the Finance and Taxation Department as to

whether the prescribed authority as mentioned in Section 36 of

the Act of 2003 would be the same authority who would be

exercising the powers under Section 82 of the Act of 2003. The

learned Standing Counsel with all fairness submitted that a

prescribed authority in terms with Section 36 of the Act of 2003

would be the authority who would carry out the audit

assessment proceedings in terms with the Act of 2003 whereas

the power conferred under Section 82 of the Act of 2003 is to be

exercised by the Revisional Authority. However, the learned

Standing Counsel submitted that if the VAT audit has been done

by following the procedure in terms with the Circular, the

Revisional Authority has to see as to whether the same has been

done in terms with the said Circular or if new materials are

brought on record during the revisional proceedings, the

Revisional Authority is also required to follow the same mandate

of the Circular.

19. This Court had duly perused the Circular No.15/2010 dated

23.08.2010. The said Circular is in respect to carrying out VAT

Audit Assessment and do not prescribe any instructions or

directions in so far as the Revisional Authority is concerned.

Page No.# 18/25

Under such circumstances, the question of challenging the

revisional order dated 26.02.2020 on the basis of the Circular

No.15/2020 is totally misconceived.

20. Be that as it may, this Court had perused the impugned

orders dated 26.02.2020. It is seen that the Revisional Authority

while deciding the said revision applications filed by the

petitioner firm had made necessary enquiries as is apparent from

a perusal of the contents of the revisional orders. The necessary

enquiries were made on the basis of the Excise Documents,

Certificates from officers of receiving States of Arunachal Pradesh

and Nagaland, proof of the existence of the purchasing dealers,

the facts of sales and facts of goods reaching other States

proved by excise documents. This Court further takes note of the

fact that though the instant writ petition has been filed

challenging the revisional orders dated 26.02.2020, but there is

no material brought on record to the effect that any enquiry was

made by the Taxation Department of the Government of Assam

pertaining to the factual determination so arrived at by the

Revisional Authority in the impugned orders dated 26.02.2020

and such enquiry proved otherwise. There is nothing on record

to show that the impugned orders dated 26.02.2020 are result of

fraud or is on account of collusion. This Court has also duly taken

note of the impugned orders dated 26.02.2020 and there is

Page No.# 19/25

nothing to show that the impugned orders suffers from any

perversity. Under such circumstances, the question of issuance of

a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned orders

dated 26.02.2020 do not arise.

21. Accordingly, this Court therefore finds no merits in the

instant batch of writ petitions so filed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia challenging the impugned

orders dated 26.02.2020 passed in respect to the Act of 2003

and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for which the same stands

dismissed.

22. In the backdrop of the above decision rendered, the

question arises as to whether the petitioner firm is entitled to the

relief so sought for in WP(C) No.4240/2022. This Court has duly

taken note of that the deposits so made by the petitioner firm for

admission of the revision petitions are nothing but pre-deposit

for availing the right of revision. Under such circumstances, when

by the order dated 26.02.2020, the Revisional Authority had

allowed those revision petitions, the petitioner is entitled to the

refund of the said amounts to which the petitioner had deposited

as a pre-deposit in view of the well settled principles that a pre-

deposit cannot be equated to payment of duty. Be that as it may,

this Court cannot also be unmindful of the fact that the orders

dated 26.02.2020 had dealt with the pre-deposit amount. It was

Page No.# 20/25

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner firm that the

entire amount of Rs.6,36,47,442/- is the amount which was

deposited as pre-deposit in relation to the various assessment

years. The operative part of the order dated 26.02.2020 passed

in relation to Section 9 (2) of the Central sales Tax Act, 1956 is

reproduced herein under to appreciate the directions passed by

the Revisional Authority:-

“It has been claimed that the dealer has deposited Rs.6,36,47,442/-

on different dates against the liability raised under the AVAT Act,

2003. The credit for the said amount, after looking in to all the

challans, will be allowed during fresh assessments of the

assessment orders under said Act. Since a portion of the tax levied

under the AVAT Act, 2003 has been shifted to the Central Sales Tax

Act, 1956, the amount deposited under the AVAT Act, 2003 may be

adjusted against the tax liability raised under the CST Act, 1956.

The amount of excess deposited VAT in comparison to due taxes,

will be first adjusted against the amounts of tax become due under

the CST Act, 1956 and the balance will be refunded to the dealer as

per the provisions of law. The said adjustments, for the purpose of

calculation of interest, will be made on the date of payment by the

petitioner.

In view of the above, the assessment orders passed by the

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, VAT Audit Cell, Guwahati for the

‘periods 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 under

the Central Sales. Tax Act, 1956 have been set aside. The dealer will

Page No.# 21/25

submit the original copies of 9 (nine) ‘C’ forms as directed above

before the Assessing Officer. The jurisdictional Superintendent of

Taxes, Tinsukia is directed to pass fresh assessment orders for the

aforesaid four periods within 30 days of receiving of this order in

view of the observations and directions mentioned above.”

23. The operative portion of the revisional order dated

26.02.2020 in relation to the Act of 2003 is reproduced herein

below:-

“It has been claimed that the dealer has deposited Rs. 6,36,47,442/-

on different dates against the liability raised under the Assam Value

Added Tax Act, 2003. The credit for the said amount after verifying

all the challans will be allowed during fresh assessments. Since a

portion of the tax levied under the AVAT Act, 2003 has been shifted

to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the amount deposited under the

AVAT Act, 2003 may be adjusted against the tax liability raised

under the CST Act, 1956. The amount of excess deposited VAT in

comparison to due taxes will be first adjusted against the amounts

of tax become due under the CST Act, 1956 and the balance will be

refunded to the dealer as per the provisions of law. The said

adjustments for the purpose of calculation of interest will be made

on the date of payment by the petitioner.

I hereby set aside the impugned assessment orders for the periods

2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009-passed by the

Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, VAT Audit Cell, Guwahati under

the AVAT Act, 2003 and direct the jurisdictional assessing officer to

Page No.# 22/25

reframe fresh assessment orders within 30 days of receiving the

order in the light of the observations made here in above.

Inform all concerned.”

24. From the operative portion of the orders dated 26.02.2020

as quoted above, it would transpire that the Revisional Authority

had directed that fresh assessment orders were to be passed

taking into consideration the various details stated therein and

thereafter to refund the balance amounts after making necessary

adjustments. It was further directed that the said fresh

assessment orders were to be passed within 30 days after

receipt of the said orders. The materials on record do not reflect

when the orders dated 26.02.2020 were received by the

respondent No.5. However, it is seen from the records that on

07.04.2021, the revisional orders dated 26.02.2020 were served

upon the respondent No.5 by the petitioner firm and as such this

Court is of the opinion that the reckoning of the 30 days for

passing the fresh assessments would start from 07.04.2021 and

fresh assessment orders were to be passed on or before

07.05.2021.

25. The directions passed by the Revisional Authority dated

26.02.2020 were specific upon the respondent No.5 which was

not complied with. In that process, the Respondent Authorities

continued to withhold the amounts to which the petitioner firm

Page No.# 23/25

would have been entitled to if in the fresh assessment orders it

was found that the petitioner firm was entitled to the refund. The

non-compliance to the directions to pass fresh assessment orders

without there being a stay of the revisional orders dated

26.02.2020 goes contrary to the mandate of the Act of 2003 and

further had led to depriving the due benefits to the petitioner

firm without reasonable cause. Under such circumstances, this

Court is of the opinion that the petitioner firm would be entitled

to interest w.e.f. 08.05.2021 if upon passing of fresh assessment

orders, it is found that any amount is to be refunded to the

petitioner firm.

26. This Court though noticed that in the cases before the

Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the

petitioner firm interest was awarded to the tune of 13% to 15%

per annum. However, in the instant case, in view of the orders

dated 26.02.2020 wherein the Revisional Authority observed that

the amounts be adjusted against dues and then refunded, this

Court is of the opinion that the petitioner firm would be entitled

to the simple interest @ 9% per annum which is the statutory

interest in terms with Section 52 of the Act of 2003.

27. Accordingly, the writ petitions stands disposed of with the

following observations and directions:-

Page No.# 24/25

(i) The impugned orders dated 26.02.2020 challenged in

the batch of writ petitions filed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia being WP(C)

No.4463/2024; WP(C) No.4465/2024; WP(C)

No.5968/2024; WP(C) No.5969/2024; WP(C)

No.5970/2024; WP(C) No.6002/2024; WP(C) No.6003/2024

and WP(C) No.6018/2024 are not interfered with. The

batch of writ petitions stands dismissed.

(ii) The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia is

directed to pass fresh assessment orders at the earliest and

not later than 6 (six) weeks from the date of the instant

judgment.

(iii) Upon completion of the said assessment proceedings in

terms with the revisional orders dated 26.02.2020, the

petitioner, if found entitled to any amount, the same be

disbursed at the earliest and not later than 4 (four) weeks

from the date of passing the fresh assessment orders.

(iv) The said refunds shall carry interest @ of 9% per

annum from 08.05.2021 till the date of actual payment.

(v) The show cause notice dated 18.11.2021 is also set

aside and quashed.

(vi) The writ petition being WP(C) No.4240/2022 is allowed

Order downloaded on 04-08-2025 10:06:02 PMPage No.# 25/25

in terms with the observations made herein above.

(vii) There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant