(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund Rs. 22,000 with interest.
(2.) A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the contents of the annexed documents show that by an order dated August 17, 1999 (annexure P1), the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Hisar, set aside the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Assessing Authority under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted application dated September 18, 1999 to the Assessing Authority for refund of Rs. 22,000 deposited at the time of filing of appeal. After about nine months, it's representative submitted representation, annexure P3, dated June 14, 2000 to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Rohtak, for refund of Rs. 22,000 with interest. Having failed to evoke any response either from the Assessing Authority or from the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Rohtak, the petitioner submitted representation, annexure P4, dated September 11, 2000 to the Prohibition, Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, for directing the concerned authority to refund the amount in view of the law laid down by the High Court in Punjab State University Text Book Board v. State of Punjab [1990] 79 STC 216 (P&H), Ram Singh Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana [1990] 79 STC 292 (P&H), Jindal Strips Limited v. State of Haryana [1996] 100 STC 337 (P&H), Chemiplast Industries v. State of Haryana [1997] 104 STC 469 (P&H) and OPK Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab [1998] 110 STC 481 (P&H).
(3.) Shri Avneesh Jhingan, counsel for the petitioner, relied on the order dated July 6, 2000 passed in C.W.P. No. 1743 of 2000 [Bharat Rice Mills, Sirsa v. State of Haryana [2001] 123 STC 241 (P&H)] and argued that in the absence of any order passed by the competent authority for withholding the refund, the respondents are bound to release the amount of Rs. 22,000 along with interest.