{"id":7233,"date":"2013-10-01T13:22:25","date_gmt":"2013-10-01T07:52:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=7233"},"modified":"2013-10-01T13:22:25","modified_gmt":"2013-10-01T07:52:25","slug":"cit-vs-gujarat-flouro-chemicals-supreme-court-s-244a-the-department-is-not-obliged-to-pay-interest-on-interest-as-that-is-not-provided-in-the-law-sandvik-asia-280-itr-643-sc-awarded-compensation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-gujarat-flouro-chemicals-supreme-court-s-244a-the-department-is-not-obliged-to-pay-interest-on-interest-as-that-is-not-provided-in-the-law-sandvik-asia-280-itr-643-sc-awarded-compensation\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Gujarat Flouro Chemicals (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1083\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=1083&varname2=Gujarat_Flouro_Sandvik_Asia_244A_Interest.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (Gujarat_Flouro_Sandvik_Asia_244A_Interest.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nS. 244A: The department is not obliged to pay interest on interest as that is not provided in the law.  Sandvik Asia 280 ITR 643 (SC) awarded compensation for inordinate delay on its facts<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p>In <strong>Sandvik Asia<\/strong> 280 ITR 643 (SC) the Supreme Court held that if the department delays paying interest on the refunded amount, the assessee is entitled to interest on interest.  Subsequently, in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-gujarat-flouro-chemicals-supreme-court-sandik-asia-280-itr-643-sc-is-not-correct-and-should-be-reconsidered\/\">CIT vs. Gujarat Flouro Chemicals<\/a><\/strong>, a view was expressed that <strong>Sandvik Asia<\/strong> 280 ITR 643 (SC) did not lay down the correct law and ought to be reconsidered. The matter was referred to a larger Bench. HELD by the larger Bench:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The judgment in <strong>Sandvik Asia<\/strong> 280 ITR 643 (SC) has been misquoted and misinterpreted by the assessees and also by the Revenue.  Their view that in <strong>Sandvik<\/strong> case this Court had directed the  Revenue to pay interest on the statutory interest in case of delay in  the  payment and that the Revenue is obliged  to pay an interest on interest in the  event  of  its  failure  to  refund  the interest payable within the statutory period is not correct. In <strong>Sandvik Asia<\/strong>, the  Court  was considering the issue whether an assessee who is made to wait for refund  of interest for decades be compensated for the great  prejudice  caused  to  it due to the delay in its payment after the lapse of statutory period. In  the facts of that case, this Court came to the conclusion that there was  an inordinate delay on the part of the  Revenue  in  refunding certain  amount which included the statutory interest and therefore,  directed  the  Revenue to pay compensation for the same but not an interest on interest. S. 244A provides for interest on refunds  under  various  contingencies.  It is clarified that it is only that interest provided for under the statute which may be claimed by an assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong><br \/>\nS. 244A: The department is not obliged to pay interest on interest as that is not provided in the law.  Sandvik Asia 280 ITR 643 (SC) awarded compensation for inordinate delay on its facts<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p>The judgment in <strong>Sandvik Asia<\/strong> 280 ITR 643 (SC) has been misquoted and misinterpreted by the assessees and also by the Revenue.  Their view that in <strong>Sandvik<\/strong> case this Court had directed the  Revenue to pay interest on the statutory interest in case of delay in  the  payment and that the Revenue is obliged  to pay an interest on interest in the  event  of  its  failure  to  refund  the interest payable within the statutory period is not correct. In <strong>Sandvik Asia<\/strong>, the  Court  was considering the issue whether an assessee who is made to wait for refund  of interest for decades be compensated for the great  prejudice  caused  to  it due to the delay in its payment after the lapse of statutory period. In  the facts of that case, this Court came to the conclusion that there was  an inordinate delay on the part of the  Revenue  in  refunding certain  amount which included the statutory interest and therefore,  directed  the  Revenue to pay compensation for the same but not an interest on interest. S. 244A provides for interest on refunds  under  various  contingencies.  It is clarified that it is only that interest provided for under the statute which may be claimed by an assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-gujarat-flouro-chemicals-supreme-court-s-244a-the-department-is-not-obliged-to-pay-interest-on-interest-as-that-is-not-provided-in-the-law-sandvik-asia-280-itr-643-sc-awarded-compensation\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7233","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7233"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7233\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}