BAGRI FOUNDATION Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed this petition seeking a mandamus to the respondents to issue refund vouchers for the amount of tax which was liable to be refunded to the petitioner and for which there was no dispute. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay interest which is statutorily liable to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner. During the pendency of this petition and after notice of the petition being served on the respondents, the requisite refund voucher has been issued and the main grievance, therefore, stands satisfied.

(2.) HOWEVER , the petitioner has pressed for the costs of the petition being allowed to the petitioner inasmuch as the respondents failed to carry out their statutory obligation and the petitioner was driven to the necessity of filing this petition.

(3.) LEARNED senior standing counsel for the respondents submitted that inasmuch as the tax has been refunded along with interest the costs may not be awarded. We are not impressed. Interest is now a statutory obligation under the IT Act. It compensates the petitioner for delay in refund but does not compensate the petitioner for the expenses incurred in coming to the Court.