9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (6) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at part of the turnover with sales tax. But, by the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1963 (Mysore Act 9 of 1964) section 5(5A) was amended retrospectively, and in consequence, the turnover which had been included by the Commercial Tax Officer in the order of assessment stood properly included. Section 34 of the amending Act validated the assessments made under the principal Act notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal. So, the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer thus stood retrospectively validated. But, meanwhile on the strength of the order of this Court, in W.P. No 1235 of 1962, the petitioner sought a refund of the tax attributable to the turnover which, in the opinion of this Court, had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merated in rule 39. These are refunds which are made under the principal Act. But, if a refund is made because this Court directed a refund while it quashed some part of the order of assessment, it is not a refund made under the Act, but is one made in obedience to the direction of the Court. If, as explained by this Court, the assessment itself was not authorised by the Act, the collection of the tax made in enforcement of that order of assessment is not a collection made under the Act nor is its refund made under the orders of the Court, a refund made under the Act. So, the argument that there was legislative validation of the refund must be negatived. The argument that the impugned demand had to be preceded by an order of rectificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essary for the Commercial Tax Officer to clothe himself with the authority to, demand it, to make a rectification of his own assessment. But, such rectification was obviously unnecessary in the present case. The decision of the Supreme Court in M.K. Venkatachalam, Incometax Officer, and Another v. Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co., Ltd.[1958] 34 I.T.R. 143. and of the High Court of Madras in Ceylon Thowfeck Hotel v. The State of Madras[1961] 12 S.T.C. 238. have no resemblance to the case before us. In the former case, the Income-tax Officer made a refund of interest on the advance tax paid by the assessee on the basis of statutory provisions which were subsequently retrospectively amended. The elucidation made by the Supreme Court was that the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
