9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, Avinash Pandey and T. Mahipal, Advocates, for the respondent. Krishnan Venugopal, Aarohi Bhalla, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao and Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates, for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the trade tax revision filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the assess- ee/dealer"). The question involved lies within a very narrow compass, i.e., whether a dealer can make adjustment while depositing tax on the basis of tax, admitted to be payable, out of certain amounts whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales Tax, Agra. In appeal, the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, Bench (3) (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") affirmed the view of the assessing officer and the first appellate authority. The dealer carried the matter further by filing a trade tax revision and as noted above, the learned single judge held that it is open to the assessee to make the adjustment with reference to section 29 of the Act. The learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the High Court clearly misconstrued the provisions contained in section 29 of the Act and, therefore, the view of the assessing officer as affirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal should not have been interfered with. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 29 to hold that the amount found to be refundable shall be first adjusted against the tax or any other amount outstanding against the dealer under the Act or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the Central Act"). The approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. A bare reading of the proviso referred to shows that the amount must have been found to be refundable and due to be refunded. No authority has found any amount to be refundable. The stand of the dealer that since the matter was remanded by the appellate authority any amount paid beyond the admitted tax has to be construed as refundable is clearly untenable. The expression used is "found to be refundable". In other words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
