9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icle 286(1)(a) of the Constitution governed the period from 26th January, 1950, to 31st March, 1950. Accordingly he gave the following direction: "The assessment for the quarter ending 31st March, 1950, should be revised levying sales tax on the sales effected by the petitioner up to and including 25th January, 1950, and exempting the sales effected from 26th January, 1950, to 31st March, 1950, which are covered by article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution." In accordance with this direction the Sales Tax Officer passed an order of reassessment on 2nd August, 1959, stating that a sum of Rs. 89,009.50 should be refunded to the petitioner. This revised order of assessment was intimated to the assessee on 6th August, 1959. The assessee, on 13t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of the order of assessment, whichever period is later." The proviso to section 14 sets out the limitation to an application for refund. The application has to be made within 24 months from the date on which the order of assessment was passed. In the alternative, it is to be filed within 12 months of the final order passed on appeal, revision, review or reference, in respect of the very period of assessment, and when the dealer is entitled to either of the two alternative periods, he is also entitled to the benefit of the extended period. 3.. In order to appreciate the question of limitation, the respective contentions of the parties may be noticed. The learned Standing Counsel contends that the final order in revision was passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the light of the legal pronouncements made by the revisional authority. If that be the position, then the order of the revisional authority passed on 28th September, 1957, cannot be taken to be a final order to enable the petitioner to apply for refund. On the language of the order so passed the petitioner must have to wait until the reassessment order is made and that order alone would indicate as to what extent the sales are exempt from liability being interState in character. 5.. On the aforesaid analysis, the effective order would be that passed by the Sales Tax Officer on 2nd August, 1959, when he made reassessment. Or, rather, for the purpose of limitation, the effective date would be 6th August, 1959, when the above order of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse is adopted by us. But in view of the fact that the revision has been pending before the Commissioner since 1964 and in view of the further fact that we are satisfied that the petitioner has got a clear case, no useful purpose would be served by giving a direction for further hearing of the revision. 8.. In the result, the writ application succeeds. A writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 20th July, 1964, refusing refund of the tax. A writ of mandamus be also issued directing the opposite parties to make refund of the tax to the petitioner without any delay. The application is allowed, but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. ACHARYA, J.-I agree. Application allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
