1974 (6) TMI 57 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of applications for refund of sales tax
- Exigibility of sales tax on contract work
- Premature application for refund

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to seven applications for writs of certiorari challenging the rejection of applications for refund of sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer and Commissioner of Sales Tax. The case involves a joint venture between states for a Hydro Electric Project, where a contractor undertook certain contracts. The contractor challenged its liability for sales tax, and a reference was made to the court, which decided that sales tax was not leviable on the contract work. The contractor and Superintending Engineer applied for a refund, which was rejected as barred by limitation. The main contention raised was that the applications for refund were premature as a final order under section 24(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act had not been passed by the Tribunal. The court held that the applications for refund were premature, and it is for the Tribunal to pass a final order before any refund can be claimed. The court emphasized that any decision on the premature applications would be non est in law, and the petitioners could reapply for refund once the Tribunal passes the appropriate order. The judgment concluded that the writ applications had to fail, and the petitioners should approach the Tribunal for the final order before claiming any refund.

In the judgment, Mr. Ramdas raised several contentions, highlighting the court's decision on the exigibility of sales tax on the contract work. The court referenced a previous decision where it was held that sales tax was not leviable on the transactions related to the Hydro Electric Project. The court noted that under section 24(5) of the Act, a final order must be passed by the Tribunal, and since no final order had been passed post the court's decision, the applications for refund were premature. The court clarified that the advisory opinion given by the court did not dispose of the appeal finally, and it was essential for the Tribunal to pass a final order before any refund could be claimed. The judgment emphasized that the premature applications for refund were not valid in law, and the petitioners needed to wait for the Tribunal's final order before reapplying for a refund.

Justice Panda agreed with the judgment, leading to the dismissal of the applications for writs of certiorari. The court's decision highlighted the importance of following the procedural requirements under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, specifically the need for a final order from the Tribunal before claiming a refund. The judgment provided clarity on the premature nature of the refund applications and directed the petitioners to seek refund only after the Tribunal passes the appropriate order.