9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le old parts, scrap materials, condemned vehicles and obsolete stocks. The following demands were raised against the petitioner for the assessment years quoted against each: Assessment year Tax Penalty 1972-73 3,085 1,000 4,085 1973-74 19,727 12,000 33,727 (sic) 1974-75 24,190 12,000 36,190 1975-76 13,466 7,000 20,466 Total 99,468 (sic) The petitioner preferred appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Berhampur Range, Ganjam, and by order dated 15th March, 1979, the assessment was confirmed and the appeals were dismissed. The matter was carried in second appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa. By order dated 15th N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order (annexure-6) do not relate to the assessment order in question and that they relate to earlier years. He also admitted that no appeal has been preferred to the Supreme Court against the order dated 15th November, 1979, passed by the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, allowing the appeals and remanding the cases for fresh assessment. He, however, contended that the refund of tax becomes due only when the assessment is annulled and not when it is merely set aside and the case is remanded for fresh assessment. 7.. The present case is directly covered by a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur III Circle, Jharsuguda [1982] 50 STC 211. In that case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a contingent one. It may be, when reassessment is completed, some demand may be raised. It is also possible, as has been contended by Dr. Pal for the petitioners, that the reassessment may not result in any demand. When the matter stands in such a position, can it be said that the amount, refund of which is claimed, is due from the petitioners under the Act? If the money is not due from it, certainly the right to claim refund under the parent provision of section 14 arises." 8.. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision, the contention raised on behalf of the opposite party is untenable. The petitioner is entitled to get refund of the tax paid. 9.. The writ application is allowed; but in the circumstances without an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
