High Court can not order interest on Refund in excess of 6% p.a. u/s 244A, Excess Interest needs to be Refunded to Revenue
Issue: Whether the High Court can order a refund of interest on income tax refunds at a rate higher than the statutory rate of 6% per annum as prescribed under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Facts:
- The High Court directed the revenue to pay interest on a refund to the assessee at 15% per annum.
- The revenue appealed against this order, arguing that the statutory rate under Section 244A is only 6% per annum.
- The assessee claimed that the revenue had already complied with the High Court’s order.
- The Supreme Court had previously stayed the High Court’s direction for interest exceeding 6% per annum through an interim order.
Decision:
- The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ordering a refund of interest at a rate higher than the statutory rate of 6% per annum.
- Despite the revenue’s compliance with the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the assessee to refund the excess interest paid (over and above the 6% per annum).
Key Takeaways:
- This case clarifies that the rate of interest on income tax refunds is statutorily fixed at 6% per annum under Section 244A.
- Courts cannot order a higher rate of interest than what is prescribed by the statute.
- Even if an order for a higher rate is complied with, it can be rectified by a higher court, and the excess amount must be refunded.
- This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and ensures consistency in the application of interest rates for income tax refunds.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
TSI Business Parks (Hyderabad) (P.) Ltd.
Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna and SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 000996 of 2025
SLP (C) NO. 11995 of 2021
SLP (C) NO. 11995 of 2021
JANUARY 24, 2025
Raghavendra P. Shankar, A.S.G., Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Karan Lahiri, Bhuvan Mishra, Shubhranshu Padhi, Shyam Gopal, Jitin Singhal and Ms. Sweksha, Advs. for the Petitioner. Parag Khandhar, Shahan Ulla and Varun Kalra, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned A.S.G. for the appellant(s), learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. The only grievance of the appellant(s) is with regard to the award of interest at 15% per annum from the date of adjustment of the said amount till the date of payment of the refund of a sum of Rs.1,06,06,740/- and Rs.6,25,70,390/-.
4. Learned A.S.G. submitted that the statutorily fixed rate of interest under Section 244-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is only 6% per annum. Therefore, the High Court could not have ordered for refund @ 15% per annum. In the circumstances, he submitted that the said portion of the order may be modified by allowing this appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant(s)/Department has already complied with the direction issued by the High Court in paragraph 62 of the impugned judgment. In the circumstances, appropriate orders may be made in the matter.
6. We find that this Court by an interim order dated 13.08.2021 had stayed the direction of the High Court insofar as it pertains to the award of interest in excess of 6% per annum. However, by then there had been compliance of the order of the High Court.
7. We hence allow this appeal by directing the respondent to refund the amount of interest in excess of 6% per annum to the appellant(s)/Department being Rs.36,61,013/- within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly.
8. The Appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
9. Pending application (s) shall stand disposed of.
__________________________
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
TSI Business Parks Hyderabad (P.) Ltd.
v.
Assistant Director of Income Tax
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND T. Amarnath Goud, JJ.
WRIT PETITION Nos.19243 and 19259 of 2020
JANUARY 22, 2021
G. Narendra Chetty, Adv. for the Petitioner. K. Mamata, Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. – Since common issues of law and fact arise for consideration and since both cases are filed by the same petitioner against the Income-tax Department of the Union of India, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. Heard Sri Deepak Chopra, Senior Counsel appearing for G. Narendra Chetty, counsel for petitioner, and Ms. Mamta Choudhary, Senior Standing Counsel for the Income-tax Department, for respondent nos.1 and 2 in both the Writ Petitions.
3. The petitioner is a limited Company and is engaged in the business of developing I.T. Parks in Hyderabad. It is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’).
Writ Petition No. 19243 of 2020
4. The petitioner had filed its Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 31-10-2017 by declaring an income of Rs. 2,75,64,380/- under normal provisions and Rs. 16,00,17,514/-under MAT provision and had paid a tax on MAT of Rs. 3,41,50,298/-.
5. An Assessment Order dt.23-12-2019 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad (1st respondent) making a total addition of Rs. 36,34,89,72/- to the income returned by the petitioner under the MAT provisions and raising a demand for tax of Rs. 8,01,57,967 under section 156 of the Act.
6. Petitioner preferred an Appeal against it before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and also filed an application seeking stay of the demand before the 1st respondent.
7. On 29-1-2020, the 1st respondent disposed of the stay application following CBDT Instruction No. 1914 dt.02-2-1993 directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand for grant of stay. The 1st respondent stated that stay will be granted on submission of challan for 20% of the demand raised for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
8. According to petitioner, oral discussions took place with the 1st respondent wherein the latter directed petitioner to deposit a sum equivalent to 10% of the outstanding demand and the remainder 10% was agreed to be adjusted against the determined refunds due to the petitioner for Assessment Year 2018-19; and in compliance thereof, petitioner deposited Rs. 80,00,000/- on 31-1-2020. Copy of the said challan is enclosed as Annexure A.4.
9. Thereafter, through a letter Annexure A.5 dt.10-2-2020, petitioner apprised the 1st respondent regarding the deposit of the money as directed and further requested 1st respondent to adjust the balance of Rs. 80,31,593/- [Rs.1,60,31,593/- (being 20% of the outstanding demand) less Rs. 80,00,000/-] against the determined refund of Assessment Year 2018-19.
10. But, on 15-4-2020, without any prior intimation under Sec.245 of the Act, the Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore (2nd respondent) adjusted the entire refund due to the petitioner for Assessment Year 2018-19, i.e., Rs. 1,86,38,333/- i.e Rs. 1,30,45,813/- against the outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 (as opposed to the agreed sum of Rs. 80,31,593/-) and Rs. 55,92,520 against an alleged outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2008-09. Petitioner has annexed as Annexure A.6, copy of the refund status for Assessment Year 2018-19 evidencing adjustment of refund on 15-4-2020.
11. Thereafter, on 9-5-2020, the 2nd respondent issued a notice under section 245 of the Act proposing to adjust the determined refund of Assessment Year 2019-20 against the outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 and Assessment Year 2008-09.
12. This notice is subject matter of Writ Petition No. 19259 of 2020.
13. Petitioner contends that in the notice dt.09-5-2020, the 2nd respondent acknowledged that the outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 as on 9-5-2020 was Rs. 5,91,12,157/- [being Rs. 8,01,57,967 minus (Rs.80,00,000/- + Rs. 1,30,45,813/-)] indicating that the adjustment of excessive refund for Assessment Year 2018-19 had occurred on 15-4-2020.
14. Thereafter, on 13-5-2020, another notice under section 245 of the Act was issued by the 2nd respondent proposing to adjust the refund (which had in fact already been adjusted) due to the petitioner for Assessment Year 2018-19 against the outstanding demands of Assessment Year 2008-09 and Assessment Year 2017-18 (Annexure A.8).
15. Petitioner filed a letter Ex.A.9 dt.15-6-2020 with the 1st respondent apprising the 1st respondent of these facts and protesting against the adjustment of the excessive refund against the outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 mentioning that there was no demand outstanding for Assessment Year 2008-09 and seeking that the excess amount adjusted to the tune of Rs. 1,06,06,740/- be refunded to it. The Assessment Order passed for Assessment Year 2008-09 and the challan evidencing payment of demand were also filed as Annexures A.10 and A.11.
16. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed the order dt.23-7-2020 (Annexure A.12) acknowledging that petitioner had deposited a sum higher than 20% of the outstanding demand and granted stay of demand till the disposal of the Appeal by the CIT (Appeals).
17. Petitioner filed Annexure A.13 letter dt.07-8-2020 with the 1st respondent protesting against the entire actions of the respondents and complaining that the adjustment of refunds was unjust and contrary to law.
18. Petitioner therefore filed Writ Petition No. 19243 of 2020 challenging the action of respondents in making such alleged unjust adjustment of excess refunds to the tune of Rs. 1,06,06,740/- and seeking refund of the same with interest.
Writ Petition No. 19259 of 2020
19. For the Assessment Year 2019-20, petitioner had filed its Return of Income on 30-10-2019 and had declared a Book Profit of Rs. 41,95,09,463/- and claimed a refund of Rs. 5,79,35,600/-.
20. On 9-5-2020, the 1st respondent issued the first notice Annexure A.8 under section 245 of the Act proposing to adjust the determined refund of Assessment Year 2019-20 against the outstanding demand for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2017-18.
21. Petitioner filed Annexure A.9 response dt.07-6-2020 with the 1st respondent online contesting the said adjustment and informing the latter that the demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 had already been stayed post the deposit of the requisite 20% as required by the 2nd respondent.
22. Petitioner also filed Annexure A.10 letter dt.15-6-2020 with 2nd respondent questioning how the demand for Assessment Year 2008-09 ( which was non-existent as it was already paid fully by the petitioner) could have been again recovered by adjustment of the refund for Assessment Year 2019-20; and reiterating its objection to the adjustment of demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 against the refund for the Assessment Year 2019-20 as already stated in the 7-6-2020 on-line reply.
23. On 8-7-2020, an order Annexure A.11 under section 143(1) of the Act was passed by the 1st respondent for the Assessment Year 2019-20 determining the refund due to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 6,25,70,390/-; and simultaneously 1st respondent issued the impugned notice dt.08-7-2020 (Annexure A.1) under section 245 of the Act proposing to again adjust the above mentioned determined refund against the outstanding demands for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2017-18 and asked the petitioner to file a response thereto in (30) days.
24. Even before the said period of 30 days period granted to the petitioner to respond to the said notice expired, the 1st respondent on 24-7-2020 itself adjusted the entire refund for Assessment Year 2019-20 against the remainder outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 including the principal amount of Rs. 5,91,12,157/- and interest of Rs. 34,58,233/- which is evidenced by the screen-shot (Annexure A.13) and extracts of Form 26AS of Assessment Year 2017-18 (Annexure A.14).
25. As a last resort, petitioner filed its grievance before the 1st respondent’s on-line portal as well as by physical letters apprising the 1st respondent regarding the facts of the case and questioning how refunds have been adjusted against the demand which had already been stayed by 2nd respondent. The copy of online grievance filed with the e-Nivaran portal and the letter filed with the 1st respondent dt.10-9-2020 are attached herewith as Annexures A.17 and A.18, respectively.
26. In response to such grievance petition, the 1st respondent closed the grievance by stating that the demand details for the Assessment Year 2017-18 were uploaded by the 2nd respondent and stated their inability to assist in the matter. The e-mail dt.12-9-2020 is attached as Annexure A.19.
27. Thereafter, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19259 of 2020 seeking refund of Rs. 6,25,70,390/- with interest.
Contentions of petitioner
28. Petitioner contends :
The stand of respondent nos.1 and 2:
29. The respondent nos.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavits in both Writ Petitions.
30. They admit that an intimation ought to be given to the assessee before making an adjustment of refund towards pending tax dues under section 245 of the Act.
31. As regards Writ Petition No. 19243 of 2020 is concerned, both respondents state that for Assessment Year 2017-18, the demand was collectible on 23-1-2020, and for Assessment Year 2008-09, it was collectible on 29-1-2020.
32. It is contended that the letter dt.29-1-2020 merely communicated the condition for consideration of the stay application for staying the demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 pending Appeal before the CIT (Appeals), but it is contended that the stay was granted only on 23-7-2020 and in the meantime the refund due to the petitioner for 2018-19 was adjusted against the demands for Assessment Years 2008-09 and Assessment Year 2017-18 on 18-3-2020 and 22-7-2020, i.e., prior to the order of stay as they were marked as collectible in January, 2020 itself.
33. It is also stated that the petitioner had raised an objection in regard to demand for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 6-9-2017 itself contending that the demand had already been paid, and the Assessing Officer had taken action to resolve this error and initiated a refund for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 22-6-2020 which was then processed and issued on 9-12-2020.
34. It is however stated that intimation under section 245 prior to the adjustment was not issued by oversight and it was issued subsequently after the 1st respondent became aware of the lacuna.
35. In the counter affidavits, there is no answer to the question why prior intimation was not given to the petitioner as required under section 245 of the Act before adjusting the refunds due to the petitioner for Assessment Year 2018-19 against the outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2017-18.
36. Coming to Writ Petition No. 19259 of 2020, it is contended that intimation under section 245 was given by the 1st respondent proposing to adjust the determined refund of Assessment Year 2019-20 against the outstanding demand for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2017-18, and it is contended that this was not objected to by the petitioner.
37. It is stated that an intimation under section 143(1) was passed on 8-7-2020 determining the refund for Assessment Year 2019-20 along with an intimation under section 245 of adjustment of such refund against the demand outstanding for Assessment Year 2017-18 and the adjustment was made on 22-7-2020.
The consideration by the Court:
38. We have noted the contentions of the respective parties.
39. Section 245 of the Income-tax Act states :
“245. Where under any of the provisions of this Act, a refund is found to be due to any person, the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals), or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may, in lieu of payment of the refund, set off the amount to be refunded or any part of that amount, against the sum, if any, remaining payable under this Act by the person to whom the refund is due, after giving an intimation in writing to such person of the action proposed to be taken under this section.”(emphasis supplied)
40. It is admitted in para no. 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos.1 in Writ Petition No. 19243 of 2020 that intimation under section 245 of the Act was not issued by oversight by the 1st respondent before adjusting on 15-4-2020 the refund due to the petitioner for Assessment Year 2018-19 of Rs. 1,86,38,333/- against the outstanding demand for Rs. 1,30,45,813/- for Assessment Year 2017-18 and for Rs. 55,92,520/-, the alleged outstanding demand for Assessment year 2008-09. Only thereafter under Annexure A.8 dt.13-5-2020, after such adjustment was made, intimation under section 245 of the Act was issued to the petitioner.
41. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Japson Estates (P) Ltd. (1 supra) held that absence of prior intimation in terms of Section 245 of the Act deprives an assessee of the right to raise objections to the order of adjustment. It held that intimation allegedly given under Sec.143(1) of the Act that there has been an adjustment of refund cannot be valid because there ought to be an intimation of a proposed adjustment and not post-facto and that the assessee had no occasion to dispute it. It therefore quashed the intimation to the extent of adjusting the refund.
42. The Delhi High Court in Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P.) Ltd. (2 supra) held that the pre-requisite for invoking Section 245 of the Act is giving of prior intimation in writing about the proposed adjustment of refund and that the revenue must also be satisfied that the assessee would not be in a position to satisfy the demand of tax and that but for the set off, the outstanding tax cannot be recovered at all. It observed that a mechanical invocation of the power under section 245 irrespective of the fact situation can lead to misuse of power by the Revenue in order to delay the refund till such time a fresh demand for the subsequent assessment years is finalized.
43. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the adjustment made on 15-4-2020 by the 1st respondent of the entire refund due to the petitioner for the assessment year 2018-19 towards the outstanding tax demands for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2008-09 is per se illegal, as it was done without issuing a prior intimation under Sec.245 of the Act; more so, when the demand for tax for the Assessment Year 2017-18 vide the Assessment Order dt.23-12-2019 is under challenge before the C.I.T. (Appeals) and the 1st respondent through an order dt.29-1-2020 granted stay subject to deposit of 20% of the outstanding demand, and the petitioner deposited on 31-1-2020 Rs. 80,00,000/- and requested the 1st respondent to adjust the remainder of Rs. 80,31,593/- against the determined refund for Assessment Year 2018-19 vide letter dt.10-2-2020 (Annexure A.5).
44. Even according to the respondents, there was no liability due for the Assessment Year 2008-09 since the assessee had objected on 6-9-2017 itself stating that the demand for the said Assessment Year had already been paid and proceedings were initiated for refund for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 22-6-2020 which was processed and allegedly issued on 9-12-2020.
45. We may also point out that as per Office memorandum F.No.404/72/93-ITCC dt.29-2-2016 issued by the CBDT clarifying it’s Instruction No. 1914 dt.21-3-1996, the Assessing Officer can, while granting stay of the demand, reserve the right to adjust refunds arising, if any, against the demand, to the extent of amount required for granting stay subject to provisions of Sec.245. There is no dispute that the Office Memorandum is binding on both the respondents.
46. So at best the 1st respondent could have adjusted a portion of the total refund due to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2018-19 i.e., Rs. 80,31,593/- only as sought by the petitioner, since the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 80,00,000/- towards the dues on 31-1-2020 in part compliance of the condition of 20% deposit of the tax liability for Assessment Year 2017-18 ( 20% comes to Rs. Rs. 1,60,31,593/-); and the 1st respondent could not have adjusted Rs. 1,30,45,813/- out of total refund determined for Assessment Year 2018-19 of Rs. 1,86,38,333/- towards the outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 (as opposed to the agreed sum of Rs. 80,31,593/-) and Rs. 55,92,520 against an alleged outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2008-09.
47. We reject the plea of the respondents that demands for Assessment Year 2017-18 were collectible on 23-1-2020 and for Assessment Year 2008-09 was collectible on 29-1-2020, that the stay of collection of the demand for Assessment Year 2017 – 18 was granted only on 23-7-2020, and therefore, the adjustment made against the demands for Assessment Year 2008-09 and Assessment Year 2017-18 on 18-3-2020 and 22-7-2020 was prior to the order of grant of stay and so the adjustment was valid.
48. The dates of adjustments mentioned above i.e. 18-3-2020 and 22-7-2020 are factually incorrect and no documentary evidence in support thereof has been filed by the respondents. We may point out that Annexure A-6, ‘Refund Status’ downloaded from the website of the Income-tax Department TIN NSDL filed by the petitioner shows that the date of adjustment is in fact 15-4-2020.
49. The date 18-3-2020 referred to by the respondents in the counter-affidavit is the date of raising of demand for Assessment Year 2008-09 as can be seen from Intimation dt.09-5-2020 issued under section 245 of the Act and it is not the adjustment date.
50. Even 22-7-2020 given by respondents as date of adjustment of refund of Assessment Year 2019-20 is incorrect, and the correct date is 24-7-2020 as can be seen from Form 26-AS of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2017-18 (Annexure A-14 in W.P.No.19259 of 2020).
51. Admittedly, the respondents have adjusted an amount of Rs. 55.92 lakhs towards demand for Assessment Year 2008-09 out of the refund determined for Assessment Year 2018-19 without issuing any Section 245 Intimation. They also admit that they have realized the error and have issued a refund of only Rs. 54.78 lakhs which is short by Rs. 1.13 lakhs of the actual adjustment amount of Rs. 55.92 lakhs. The respondents have to therefore release the balance refund of Rs. 1.13 lakhs also because there is no valid reason why a short refund was granted.
52. The respondents defence for not issuing Section 245 Intimation before making adjustment was that subsequently on 13-5-2020 such intimation was issued under section 143(1) of the Act, but the said Intimation is not valid in law as held in Japson Estates (P.) Ltd. (1 supra).
53. The letter dt.29-1-2020 issued by the 1st respondent stated that in respect of Assessment Year 2017-18 petitioner was required to deposit 20% of the disputed demand in terms of CBDT instructions. In para-6 of the counter, the respondents state that this is only a communication and the actual stay was granted on 23-7-2020.
We do not agree with the said plea because the said communication specifically states that the stay will be granted on payment of 20%, and on 30-1-2020 itself part payment was made of Rs. 80.00 lakhs with a request letter dt.10-2-2020 to adjust the balance of Rs. 80.31 lakhs from the determined refunds of Assessment Year 2018-19.
54. So the 1st respondent ought to have held that the petitioner complied with the 20% deposit as directed in the order dt.29-1-2020 on 10-2-2020 itself and ought to have refrained from proceeding with the adjustment on 22-7-2020 for the demand for Assessment Year 2017-18. Also admittedly, there was no tax payable for Assessment Year 2008-09.
55. There was thus no occasion for making any such adjustment of the refund determined for Assessment Year 2018-19 and consequently we are of the opinion that out of the sum of Rs. 1,86,38,333/- which is the refund determined for that Assessment Year, after deducting Rs. 80,31,593/- (the 20% of Rs. 8,01,57,967 = Rs. 1,60,31,593/- less Rs. 80,00,000/-), a sum of Rs. 1,06,06,740/- is refundable to the petitioner with interest at 15% per annum from the date on which it was determined, i.e., 2-10-2019 till the date of payment of the same to the petitioner.
56. As regards W.P.No.19259 of 2020, the issue pertains to Assessment Year 2019-20 and is regarding the illegal adjustment of refunds arising for the said Assessment Year against the demands for Assessment Year 2017-18 when there was in subsistence a stay order of recovery granted by 2nd respondent on 23-7-2020.
57. In para-6 of the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent and in para-7 of the counter-affidavit of 2nd respondent, it was wrongly stated that the adjustment of refunds of Assessment Year 2019-20 was done on 22-7-2020, but the said date is incorrect as seen from Annexures A-13 and A-14 filed in the Writ Petition. The correct date of adjustment is 24-7-2020 after the stay was granted on 23-7-2020.
58. In Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd. (3 supra), the Delhi High Court had held that once an absolute stay of recovery of demand of tax was granted to the assessee, it is improper and inappropriate for the Revenue to recover the money through adjustment of refunds. It declared that a stay order passed by an appellate/higher authority must be respected and no deviancy or breach should be made.
59. It is contended by respondents that intimation dt.09-5-2020 under section 245 was given by the 1st respondent proposing to adjust the determined refund of Assessment Year 2019-20 against the outstanding demand for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2017-18, but this was not objected to by the petitioner.
60. The online reply dt.07-6-2020 filed as Annexure A.9 and the letter dt.15-6-2020 filed as Annexure A.10 belie this stand of the respondents. The respondents therefore cannot contend that petitioner had not objected to the proposed adjustment indicated in the notice dt. 9-5-2020 issued under Sec.245 to the petitioner.
61. There is also no explanation forthcoming from the respondents why on 24-7-2020, even before the expiry of 30 days fixed under the second notice of intimation under section 245 dt.8-7-2020, the adjustment was made without adverting to the objections filed on 7-6-2020 and 15-6-2020. In fact, petitioner filed his objection under Annexure A-15 on 29-7-2020 within the 30 day period required by the intimation dt.08-7-2020. Therefore the petitioner cannot be denied refund of Rs. 6,25,70,390/- for the Assessment Year 2019-20 with 15% interest thereon either.
62. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- each; and the respondents are directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,06,06,740/- and Rs. 6,25,70,390/-, after deducting a sum of Rs. 54.78 lakhs which is refunded already to the petitioner, with interest at 15% p.a. from the dates of adjustment of the said amounts till the date of payment within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
63. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.