Text Practice Mode

शोर्टहेण्‍ड एवं टाईपिंग डिक्‍टेशन हेतु visit करें youtube channel "shorthand and typing hub vscti" dictation VSCTI morena

created Dec 6th 2018, 10:18 by Nandkishor Tomar



395 words
12 completed
It has not been shown by the respondents that the law laid down in this judgement has been reversed or modified. In this judgement, this Court directed for payment of interest per cent per annum from the date of deposit of money till the date of actual payment. . In view of the above discussions, a general mandmus is also issued to the State Government and all concerned authorities to pay within three months simple interest @ 8 per cent annum on all amounts of refund of stamp duty etc. under the Act to the concerned person, for the period from the date of deposit till the date of refund.  
In result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed as indicated above.  
Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary Law and Principal Secretary, Tax and Registration for compliance. "  
In reply, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner had on 7.2.2017 given an affidavit before the Additional Commissioner (Stamp) Ghaziabad, that if Rs. 10,09,775/- was returned to the petitioner then he would not take any interest from the Stamp Authorities. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner was not to get any interest amount on the amount which was returned to him.  
When this affidavit was placed on record by the learned Standing Counsel then the petitioner filed an affidavit stating that the affidavit was filed by him as he was pressurized by the Stamp Authorities that if he gave an affidavit to the effect that he would not take interest then they would return to him the excess amount that was payable to the petitioner after the order dated 16.8.2016 was passed. This affidavit has not been controverted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was all the time very nervous as to whether the excess amount which was taken from him would be returned to him or not, he had given the affidavit under pressure. Therefore, he submits that when the statute provides that interest had to be paid on any excess amount which the petitioner had to pay then the statute should be read in such a manner that the petitioner would also be paid interest on the amount which he had paid to the authorities, which he actually was not required to pay.  

saving score / loading statistics ...