9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Ghaziabad. It is engaged in the manufacture of electric wires and electric cables. For the assessment year 1975-76 the petitioners effected intra-State sales of aggregate sum of Rs. 38,27,252.19 out of which sales to the extent of Rs. 35,87,576 were made to Government departments and on those sales tax at the concessional rates of 3 per cent and 4 per cent in view of section 3-G of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was to be charged. This provision has come into force on 26th May, 1975. While filing the quarterly/monthly returns the petitioners deposited the sales tax on the sales made to the various Government departments at the rate of 7 per cent plus 1 per cent which amount came to Rs. 2,85,058.10 whereas at the concessional rates the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication for adjustment had been pending. It appears that without disposing of that application the petitioners were served with a notice of demand dated 1st July, 1977, requiring them to pay Rs. 92,617.25 and that notice form the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and hence the averments made in the petition have to be accepted as correct. It was submitted before us on behalf of the petitioners by their counsel, Sri Bharatji Agrawal, that without adjusting the amount found refundable to the petitioners, the impugned proceedings for recovery could not be taken. In the same connection it was also contended that the assessing authority could not have refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjust against such liability any amount which may be refundable to him. It was further held that under this proviso, there is a provision for an automatic adjustment. As we have indicated above, for the assessment year 1975-76 the petitioners had made excess payment of Rs. 92,617.25. They made an application on 27th April, 1977, for adjustment of that amount towards the tax payable by them for the assessment year 1976-77. They also mentioned specifically in the returns filed for that year that the excess amount was being so adjusted by them. It is unfortunate that the assessing authority did not pass any order on that application and sought to enforce recovery of the amount payable by the assessee for the subsequent year, i.e., 1976-77. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
