ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that while passing the assessment order dated 29.03.2011, gross error was committed by the respondents. Respondents stated that due to belated filing of the JVAT Form-409 (audit report), penalty of 0.1 % was imposed as per Section 63(3) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that neither there was belated filing of the JVAT Form-409 (audit report) nor the respondents have recovered 0.1%, but, they recovered 1.0% penalty. Thus, later on, rectification of error application was preferred and the order was reviewed under Section 81 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The said order was passed on 11.06.2012, which is at Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-authorities. Thus, there are two errors committed by the respondents viz.- (a) respondents have wrongly treated, filing of the JVAT Form-409 as belated filing and this error has now been rectified; and (b) as per assessment order, 0.1% penalty was imposed, whereas, recovered penalty was 1.0%. Now, the original assessment order dated 29.03.2011, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of this writ petition, has now been corrected under Section 81 of the Act, 2005 vide order dated 11.06.2012, which is at Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. Thus, the whole penalty has been removed from the original assessment order, as the respondents have accepted that there is no belated filing of the JVAT Form-409. Moreover, in this case, instead of recovery of 0.1 % penalty, by mistake respondents recovered it directly from the bank account of the assessee at the rate of 1.0%. Thus, whole penalty is now removed by review or rectification of error order dated 11.06.2012. Hence, as per revised calculation given by the respondents, amount of Rs. 19,11,208/- to be refunded, as per Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondent-State. 3. It further appears from the facts of the case that this petitioner has received review or rectification of error order, which is dated 11.06.2012, on 13.06.2012. Immediately on 14.06.2012, application has been preferred by this petitioner that the excess amount of penalty which was wrongly recovered at Rs. 19,11,208/-, which in fact to be refunded, may be adjusted towards the tax liability for the month of May, 2012. Immediately on 14.06.2012, application has been preferred by this petitioner that the excess amount of penalty which was wrongly recovered at Rs. 19,11,208/-, which in fact to be refunded, may be adjusted towards the tax liability for the month of May, 2012. Respondents have neither refunded the amount, which is wrongly recovered nor have adjusted the aforesaid amount towards the tax liability for the month of May, 2012. Assessment order for the year 2012-13 was passed on 29.02.2016. When the assessment order was passed, petitioner came to know that excess amount of Rs. 19,11,208/-, which was to be adjusted towards the tax liability for the month of May, 2012, was never adjusted by the respondents nor the amount has been refunded to the assessee. Hence, refund application was preferred, which was rejected by the respondents, vide order dated 16.11.2016, which is at Annexure-14 to the memo of this writ petition, which is under challenge. 4. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was an error committed by the respondents, while passing assessment order dated 29.03.2011, which was rectified later on under Section 81 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 vide review or rectification of error order dated 11.06.2012. The said order is at Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-authorities. Looking to the said order, it appears that there was no belated filing of the JVAT Form-409 and hence, the penalty, which was imposed, is now removed vide order dated 11.06.2012. 5. It further appears that even as per the original assessment order dated 29.03.2011, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of this writ petition, instead of recovery of 0.1% penalty as per Section 63(3) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and also as per assessment order dated 29.03.2011, respondents by mistake recovered 1.0% penalty. Thus, there were two errors committed by the respondents viz.- (a) Respondents have recovered higher amount of penalty directly from the bank account of the assessee. (b) Looking to the order dated 11.06.2012, which is review/rectification of error order, passed under Section 81 of the Act, 2005, whole penalty has now been removed because there was no belated filing of the JVAT Form-409. Hence, respondents have themselves calculated the amount of refund at Rs. (b) Looking to the order dated 11.06.2012, which is review/rectification of error order, passed under Section 81 of the Act, 2005, whole penalty has now been removed because there was no belated filing of the JVAT Form-409. Hence, respondents have themselves calculated the amount of refund at Rs. 19,11,208/-; Respondents have also not properly appreciated the prayer of the assessee dated 14.06.2012 for adjustment of this amount towards tax liability for the month of May, 2012. This is evident, looking to the assessment order passed for the next year i.e. for the year 2012-13 dated 29.02.2016. 6. In view of these facts, either the respondents have to refund the amount at Rs. 19,11,208/- or they should have adjusted this excess amount of tax paid by the assessee towards their future tax liability for the month of May, 2012, if the respondents have not adjusted this amount towards the tax liability for the month of May, 2012. Now, even the respondents shall calculate the interest, after 90 days, from 14.06.2012, as per Section 55 of the Act, 2005, i.e. at the rate of 6% on the amount of refund at Rs. 19,11,208/- w.e.f. 15.09.2012 till the date of adjustment. 7. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the two decisions, propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of “Union of India v. British India Corporation Ltd.”, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 505 as well as “Asstt. Collector of Central Excises v. Kashyap Engg. & Metallurgicals (P) Ltd.”, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 443 . 8. Looking to the peculiar facts of the present case, it appears that, (a) Respondents had wrongly treated the filing of the JVAT Form-409 as a belated filing and hence, penalty was imposed at the rate of 0.1% as per Section 63(3) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. (b) Instead of recovery of 0.1% penalty, respondents recovered it directly from the confiscation of the bank account of the assessee at the rate of 1.0%; this is nothing, but, the extortion of the money by the respondents. (c) Looking to the review or rectification of error order, passed under Section 81 of the Act, 2005 by the respondents dated 11.06.2012, even as per respondents, there is no belated filing of the JVAT Form-409, hence, whole penalty was removed by the respondents themselves. (c) Looking to the review or rectification of error order, passed under Section 81 of the Act, 2005 by the respondents dated 11.06.2012, even as per respondents, there is no belated filing of the JVAT Form-409, hence, whole penalty was removed by the respondents themselves. (d) Thus, the respondents have accepted that error was committed by them not only in imposing of the penalty, but, also of wrongly recovered higher amount of penalty and hence, as per revised calculation, given by the respondents, amount, to be refunded, is at Rs. 19,11,208/-, as per Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondent-State. (e) This order of review or rectification of error, passed under Section 81 of the Act, 2005 was received on 13.06.2012 by the assessee petitioner and immediately on 14.06.2012 i.e. on the next day, application was preferred for adjustment of this amount at Rs. 19,11,208/- towards the tax liability for the month of May, 2012. (f) Respondents neither refund the amount nor adjusted the same for the future tax liability of the assessee; this is evident when the assessment order for the year 2012-13 was passed on 29.02.2016. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, ratio decidendi propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid two judgments, are not applicable because respondents themselves have erroneously recovered the fine amount at the rate of 1.0% instead of 0.1% and that too by confiscation of the bank account of the assessee. 10. We, therefore, held that the respondents are liable to pay amount of Rs. 19,11,208/- + Rs. 5,49,472/- (interest at the rate of 6% from 15.09.2012 till today) to the petitioner and this amount shall be adjusted towards the future liability of this assessee towards the tax, penalty, interest etc. 11. Calculation of the interest upon the principal amount is done by the assessee and approved by the respondents. 12. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of.