1984 (1) TMI 294 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1963-64.
2. Rectification of assessment order based on the Amending Act.
3. Challenge to an attachment order and seeking a mandamus for tax refund.
4. Legal and effective assessment order for the year 1963-64.
5. Authority's right to recover taxes despite the Tribunal's order in favor of the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, was assessed to a tax of Rs. 10,667.98 for inter-State sale transactions of coffee in 1963-64 by the Commercial Tax Officer. An appeal was filed, and the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes allowed the appeal, canceling the assessment. The Amending Act later rectified the assessment, leading to a dispute over tax liability.

2. The Deputy Commissioner rectified the assessment order for 1963-64 based on the Amending Act, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, annulling the rectification order. However, the Commercial Tax Officer issued an attachment order to recover the assessed taxes, prompting the petitioner to challenge it through a writ petition.

3. The petitioner contended that there was no legal and effective assessment order against him for 1963-64 following the Tribunal's decision. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner remained liable for the taxes despite the Tribunal's order in his favor.

4. The judgment highlighted that the Tribunal's decision rendered the rectification order ineffective, leaving no valid assessment order against the petitioner for 1963-64. It emphasized that without a legal and effective assessment order, the authority could not recover any taxes for that period, irrespective of the Amending Act's provisions validating assessments.

5. The court declared that there was no legal and effective order under the Central Sales Tax Act for 1963-64 against the petitioner, absolving him of tax liability for that period. It directed the respondent to refund any taxes paid by the petitioner for the said year. The writ petition was disposed of with each party bearing its costs, considering the circumstances of the case.