GOVINDACHARY Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought the following prayers in these writ petitions :

(2.) PER contra, the stand of the Department is, interest has be paid from the date on which the return has been filed and therefore, the Department was justified in demanding the petitioner to pay interest from that date and not from the expiry of the period as stated in sub -s. (2) of s. 220 of the Act.

(3.) DURING the course of submission, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO : (2001) 166 CTR (SC) 1 : (2001) 247 ITR 821 (SC) and also the judgment of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of CIT v. Late Misrilal Jain Through Executor Gyanchand Jain ( : 2012) 254 CTR (Jharkhand) 554 : : (2012) 80 DTR (Jharkhand) 140 and contended that interest has to be reckoned only after the expiry of the period stipulated under sub -s. (1) of s. 220 of the Act. Therefore, petitioner's counsel contended that the Department has not followed the said decisions while demanding interest with effect from the date on which the return had to be filed.