In this regard, I have no choice but to adopt the company's demand that it be entitled to refund the amount it paid to the municipality together with linkage differences from the date on which the funds were paid by it until the date of payment of the refund - April 4,2023. Therefore, and in accordance with CPA Sitton's opinion, the aforementioned differences amount to ILS 493,751 as of the date of the opinion (January 15,2025).
In this context, the Municipality's argument that appears in paragraph 43 of Adv. Cohen's affidavit should be rejected, according to which for a very long period of time and in the framework of the dialogue between the parties, the company did not demand a refund of the usage fees, in the hope that the Ministry of the Interior would change its decision, since, as stated above, from the moment the company realized that the municipality had deceived it all the time, it contacted it in order to be reimbursed the usage fees and/or compensation accordingly. (See written inquiries on the matter) P/36, P/39, P/4).
Beyond the aforesaid, where restitution has been agreed upon together with an appraisal, the valuation must be calculated until the date on which the restitution is actually executed.
As for the VAT component , the company contacted the municipality several times in order to settle the issue of VAT refunds, and only at a later stage, in August 2024, did the municipality finally agree that the company would contact CPA Shlomi Vaknin in order to represent the municipality before the tax authorities, and for this purpose a joint application would be made, through the company's attorney and Adv. Shlomi Vaknin, the municipality's representative, to the tax authorities (VAT). Indeed, in September 2025, the company's attorney and Adv. Vaknin issued a joint letter to the tax authorities in order to refund the amounts paid to VAT, at least to supplement the fund.
In the absence of reference to this component, I can only conclude that the company received a VAT refund from the authorities.