Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 2713 2005 SLD 2713 (2005) 279 ITR 278
Kerala High Court
O.P. No. 11259 OF 1996 JUNE 10, 2005
S. SIRI, JAGAN, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Malini B.V. Saraf

v.

Assistant Controller of Estate Duty

Law:

Section:

Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Appellate Tribunal - Order of -Pursuant to an order of the Tribunal, assessee claimed interest on refund of estate duty - Whether in absence of any provision in 1953 Act, for payment of interest on refunds of estate duty payable on account of order of Tribunal assessee's claim could not be accepted - Held, yes FACTS Pursuant to an order of the Tribunal, the assessee claimed interest on refund of estate duty. The claim of the assessee was rejected on the ground that there was no provision in the relevant Act for granting interest on refunds. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal and the same could be granted only where the order is passed by the High Court. On reference : HELD There can not be any right to interest on the amount of refund unless the statute which enables the appellate authority to annual the assessment and order refund specifically provides for payment of interest. [Para 16] By providing for interest in respect of certain amounts under the Act, the Legislature consciously did not want to provide for interest in other cases. This could only be in public interest. Refund of tax in accordance with a taxation statue cannot be equated with delay in payment of money legally due from one person to another. [Para 21] They very fact that section 64(7) makes provision for payment of interest where the amount of any assessment is reduced as a result of any reference to the High Court and refund of estate duty overpaid becomes due to the assessee without any corresponding provision in respect of refunds becoming due pursuant to the original orders of the Tribunal under section 63 can essentially be construed as a deliberate and conscious act on the part of the law makers, rather than indicating lack of prohibition of interest as contended by the petitioner. Therefore, as far as taxing statutes are concerned, what is relevant is not whether there is prohibition of payment of interest but whether there is provision for payment of interest. This finding also disposed of the contention of the petitioner that since reference to the High Court under section 64(7) is…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492