ORDER H. N. NAGAMOHAN DAS, J. - In these writ petitions the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsements dated March 30, 2009 and May 20, 2009 as per annexures E and G to the writ petition refusing to pay interest on delayed refund. The petitioner contends that during the assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 they made certain purchases from a company called M/s. Kaytee Switch Gear Limited. On the purchases made by the petitioner - company, they have paid input tax at 12.5 per cent on the value of the goods. Subsequently the petitioner - company sold the goods in question and on which they are liable to pay four per cent tax. After adjusting the earlier payment and the subsequent payment to be made, the petitioner made a claim before the respondents for refund of the excess input tax paid Accordingly the respondents refunded excess input tax paid by the petitioner - company in the months of March and April 2008. But the respondents refused to pay interest on the delayed refund made by petitioner - company under the impugned endorsement. Hence, these writ petitions. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire writ papers. It is not in dispute that the petitioner - company has made purchases from a company called M/s. Kaytee Switch Gear Limited during the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Further it is not in dispute that the seller of the petitioner - company collected input tax at 12.5 per cent on the value of the goods. Further it is not in dispute that the seller of the petitioner - company who collected the input tax from the petitioner - company failed and neglected to remit the same to the respondents within the time stipulated under the statute. Consequently for the default committed by the seller of the petitioner - company, the respondents initiated coercive steps, recovered the tax due together with interest at 15 per cent per annum and penalty. Further it is not in dispute that the respondents have refunded excess input tax to the petitioner - company in the months of March and April 2008. The only controversy between the parties is whether the respondents are liable to pay interest at six per cent per annum on the delayed refund of input tax to the petitioner - company ? The only controversy between the parties is whether the respondents are liable to pay interest at six per cent per annum on the delayed refund of input tax to the petitioner - company ? Admittedly the respondents collected the entire 12.5 per cent input tax from the seller, M/s. Kaytee Switch Gear Limited, together with interest at 15 per cent per annum and also the penalty. The respondents are only entitled to retain the input tax at four per cent and consequent interest on delayed payment, penalty and are liable to refund the excess input tax together with interest as per section 50 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with rule 128 of the Rules. The respondents are not entitled to retain the interest collected from the seller on the refunded input tax. For the reasons stated above, the following : Order (i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsements dated March 30, 2009 and May 20, 2009 are hereby quashed. (iii) The respondents are hereby directed to calculate and pay the interest on refunded input tax as per section 50 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with rule 128 of the Rules as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.