9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (7) TMI 611 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Refund of extra tax and penalty under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 for the year 1974-75. 2. Applicability of section 14-A and section 14 of the Act for refund. 3. Dispute over refund due to the petitioner or the consumers. 4. Decision on the refund amount and its allocation to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Analysis: Issue 1: Refund of extra tax and penalty The petitioner was assessed to extra tax and penalty for the year 1974-75 under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The Sales Tax Tribunal directed the refund of extra tax and penalty paid by the petitioner after reassessment. However, a suo motu revision was initiated, leading to a dispute over the refund amount. Issue 2: Applicability of section 14-A and section 14 The petitioner argued that the refund should be governed by section 14 of the Act, as section 14-A had been deleted post-August 12, 1983. The respondent contended that for the period 1974-75, section 14-A was applicable, as per the Supreme Court decision in State of Orissa v. Orissa Cement Ltd. [1986] 61 STC 79; AIR 1986 SC 178. Issue 3: Dispute over refund recipient The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Sales Tax held that the refund was not due to the petitioner as the tax had been collected from customers. The court acknowledged the petitioner's collection but emphasized that the tax collected without authority of law cannot be retained by the Sales Tax Department. Issue 4: Decision on refund amount and allocation The court decided not to refund the amount to the petitioner but directed it to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund of the State of Orissa by a specified date. The court highlighted the need for operationalizing the Consumer Welfare Fund and suggested amendments to relevant laws if necessary. In conclusion, the court modified the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Sales Tax, disposing of the writ petition accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of refunding the collected amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the unidentifiable consumers.
|
