2015 (1) TMI 135 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of the Purchase tax - Sales tax paid on purchase of raw materials by it from M/s Tata Motors Limited - Payment of interest upon the refund amount Whether the declaration that petitioner s right to claim refund of Purchase tax is not dependent upon issuance of Excess Demand Notice under Section 42 of the Bihar Finances Act, 1981 Held that - The petitioner contended that they have purchased tax i.e. sales tax on purchase of raw materials to the respondent State - already refund applications are preferred by the petitioner for different years before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration) has raised certain objections which have also been replied by the petitioner - the petitioner may be sure in succeeding the refund applications pending before respondent no. 2 and howsoever tall may be the claim of the petitioner, but respondent no. 2 has yet to decide these refund applications - Respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the refund applications preferred by the petitioner for different years at the earliest, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of Purchase Tax, Interest Payment, Declaration of Right to Claim Refund, Excess Demand Notice under Bihar Finances Act, 1981, Pending Applications for Refund, Inaction by Respondent State, Bihar Industrial Policy, 1995 Exemption, Validity of Lease, Litigation History, Communication from Tata Motors, Defects in Refund Applications, Mandamus Writ, Decision by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Disposal of Writ Petitions.

Analysis:
The Writ Petitions were filed primarily for the refund of Purchase tax paid by the petitioner on raw materials purchased from a specific company. The petitioner also sought interest on the refund amount and a declaration asserting their right to claim the refund without an Excess Demand Notice under the Bihar Finances Act, 1981. The main petition was treated as a lead matter due to similar points raised in other petitions. The petitioner heavily relied on various court judgments to support their claim for refund, emphasizing that applications for refund were pending with the authorities without a decision being made.

The State, on the other hand, argued that certain documents were required before finalizing the refund applications and that the applications were premature as they were pending before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The State highlighted that the process of refund required applications supported by necessary documents and subsequent decision by the authorities before any refund could be granted. The State contended that the applications were yet to be decided and no adverse order had been passed against the petitioner.

The Court considered the petitioner's claim for refund based on the Bihar Industrial Policy, 1995 exemption for new industrial units. The litigation history involving disputes over lease validity and subsequent reviews leading to rejection of exemption claims was detailed. The Court noted that the petitioner had approached Tata Motors for refund, who directed them to claim directly from the State Government. The petitioner then filed refund applications which were met with objections regarding form requirements.

The Court directed the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to decide on the refund applications expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks, in accordance with the law, regulations, and court decisions referenced in the petitions. The State assured no unnecessary adjournments during the application hearings. The Court disposed of the writ petitions based on the observations and directions provided, emphasizing the need for a prompt decision on the refund applications.