9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim for octroi tax on properties belonging to the department of Telecom transported within jurisdictional area. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of its refund claim for octroi tax on properties belonging to the department of Telecom. The petitioner claimed exemption under Clause 16 of the Octroi Schedule issued by the respondent. The respondent rejected the claim, leading to the filing of the writ petition. 2. The respondent contested the petition, arguing that the writ petition was not maintainable as an alternative remedy was available under Section 138 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The respondent also claimed that the goods supplied were exempted from octroi tax under Clause 16 of the Octroi Schedule. However, the Court held that the writ petition was maintainable as the authority had exceeded its powers, and the petition was not related to assessment under the Act. 3. The Court examined the legal provisions under the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971, and the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. It noted that as per Clause 16 of the Schedule, articles belonging to the Union Government were exempt from octroi tax. The Notification dated 7-4-1972 also confirmed the exemption for government articles from octroi. 4. The Court analyzed the ownership of the goods/equipment in question. It determined that the Union of India became the owner of the goods/equipment after payment to the seller and acquisition by the Quality Assurance Wing. Therefore, the rejection of the claim seeking exemption from tax was deemed unreasonable and without legal basis. 5. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders rejecting the refund claim were quashed. The respondent was directed to refund the amount to the petitioner within 60 days, with provision for interest at the rate of 9% per annum if the refund was delayed beyond the specified period.
|
