9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (3) TMI 1057 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues involved:
The judgment questions the rejection of an appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner based on delay, the starting point of limitation for filing an appeal, the power of the appellate authority to condone delay, and the entitlement to refund of tax paid under an invalid provision. Issue 1: Rejection of appeal based on delay The petitioner filed an appeal against an assessment order with a delay of 533 days, contending that certain oil sales were subjected to higher tax rates. The appellate authority rejected the appeal citing lack of power to condone the delay beyond 30 days, as per the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner failed to provide reasons for the delay or file a separate petition for condonation. Issue 2: Starting point of limitation for filing an appeal The petitioner argued that the starting point of limitation for filing the appeal should be from the date of knowledge of a relevant court judgment, but the court held that the appeal must be filed within the period prescribed by the statute. The court emphasized that the remedy of appeal is governed by specific statutory provisions and the starting point of limitation is the date of service of the order. Issue 3: Entitlement to refund of tax paid under an invalid provision The court discussed the principles related to refund of tax paid under an unconstitutional law, highlighting the need to prove that the tax burden was not passed on to buyers to be eligible for a refund. The petitioner's inability to demonstrate that the tax was not collected from purchasers led to the conclusion that no refund would be granted. The court emphasized the importance of avoiding unjust enrichment and protecting the public exchequer. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and had engaged in speculative litigation after consenting to the assessment earlier. The court highlighted the importance of not promoting unjust claims for tax refunds and upheld the decision to reject the appeal based on delay.
|
