9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (5) TMI 420 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Refusal to entertain refund applications based on limitation period. Analysis: The petitioners filed a petition seeking to quash the impugned orders dated March 14, 1995, which refused to entertain their refund applications due to being barred by limitation. The petitioners had purchased chocolate from a company, which later changed its name. There was confusion regarding the tax rate, initially believed to be 8.8%, but later reduced to 5.5% after an appeal. The petitioners became entitled to a refund under section 29-A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. However, the Assistant Commissioner refused to entertain the refund applications, citing the limitation period prescribed in the proviso to section 29-A of the Act. The main contention revolved around whether the limitation period should be calculated from the date of the Tribunal's order or from the date when the petitioners acquired knowledge of the order. The petitioners argued that they made the refund applications within one month of knowing about the Tribunal's order, while the respondents contended that the limitation period was inflexible. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and held that limitation should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the order. Since the date of the Tribunal's order and the date of communication to the petitioners were not disputed, the Court concluded that the limitation period should start from the month of October 1994 when the petitioners acquired knowledge of the Tribunal's order. Based on the above analysis, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the respondent to entertain the refund applications of the petitioners and decide them on their merits in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of fair play and natural justice in determining the limitation period for seeking remedies against orders affecting the rights of individuals.
|
