2016 (7) TMI 1018 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of revised order passed by the respondent for the financial years 1991-92 to 1994-95, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. - Held that - the issue pertains to refund of money paid by the petitioner to avail the benefit of Samadhan Scheme. Since the issue as to whether adjustment could be made or not, are all factual issues and those complicated factual issues cannot adjudicated in a Writ Petition. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be directed to file a Revision before the concerned Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, challenging the impugned order, who would be in a position to consider all the disputed questions of fact and also the calculations which the petitioner has furnished.

Summary

Issues:
- Issuance of a writ of certiorator mandamus to challenge a revised order passed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
- Refund of money paid by the petitioner under the Samadhan Scheme.
- Entitlement for a refund due to remittance made by the petitioner against the tax due demand.

Analysis:

1. Issuance of a Writ of Certiorator Mandamus:
The petitioner sought a writ to challenge a revised order passed by the respondent under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for the financial years 1991-92 to 1994-95. The petitioner contended that the respondent erroneously held that a specific amount was not collected as an advance, thus disputing the claim for interest. The petitioner also argued that a Second Appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed, leading to a revised assessment by the respondent. The court opined that the matter involved factual issues beyond the scope of a Writ Petition and directed the petitioner to file a Revision before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to address disputed questions of fact and calculations.

2. Refund of Money Paid Under the Samadhan Scheme:
The petitioner claimed entitlement to a refund as the Application under the Samadhan Scheme was rejected, yet the amount collected was not refunded. The petitioner asserted that a sum paid under the scheme exceeded the tax due demand in the revised assessment order, warranting a refund. The court determined that the issue of refund under the Samadhan Scheme required detailed factual consideration, advising the petitioner to file a Revision Petition before the Joint Commissioner to address the disputed questions and calculations provided by the petitioner.

3. Entitlement for a Refund Due to Remittance Made by the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that a refund was warranted since they had remitted an amount under the Samadhan Scheme that surpassed the tax due demand in the revised assessment. The court directed the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the order before the Revisional Authority, allowing the petitioner to file a Revision Petition within thirty days. The Revisional Authority was instructed to entertain the petition, hear the petitioner, and issue a speaking order on merits and in accordance with the law. The court disposed of the Writ Petition, granting the petitioner liberty to seek redress through the Revision Petition process.