9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ Petition No. 436 (Tax) of 1978 and Writ Petition No. 438 (Tax) of 1978 were seized by the sales tax authorities in exercise of the powers under section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as it stood on 12th of August, 1978. The petitioners furnished cash securities amounting to Rs. 16,800 and Rs. 5,600 and got the seized goods released. They then filed the two writ petitions before this Court claiming, inter alia, that the provisions of section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act were ultra wires. According to them seizure of their goods and the entire proceedings following it were invalid. They, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the amounts of cash securities furnished by them. The court accepted the plea of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 9th of August, 1982, made in the two petitions be reviewed and they may be directed to refund the security amounts to the petitioners only after the period provided in that regard as per Ordinance No. 37 of 1982, i.e., after 27th of September, 1983. We understand that by means of subsequent enactments the embargo imposed by U.P. Act No. 33 of 1979 still continues to be operative and the security amounts deposited by the petitioners in the two writ petitions have not become refundable to them as yet. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the two petitions opposed the aforementioned prayer for review mainly on the ground that on the date when the order was made, it was absolutely in accordance with law as it then stood. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committed by it." It can, therefore, not be doubted that this Court has inherent jurisdiction to review its judgment dated 9th of August, 1982, and clearly that jurisdiction can be exercised if our judgment suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. In the case of Mohammad Azamat Azim Khan v. Raja Shatranji AIR 1963 All. 541, a Full Bench of this Court have ruled that a judgment based on the law as it stood on the day the judgment was pronounced may be correct. But where that law is altered subsequently by an amending Act, which is brought into force with retrospective effect, the judgment pronounced is rendered erroneous on the face of the record. Though the question is of correctness or otherwise of the judgment pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t once an amount becomes refundable, section 29 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act makes it obligatory on the Sales Tax Officer to adjust the same as against any tax assessed or penalty levied and that such adjustment is automatic. He contended that inasmuch as soon after 27th of September, 1982, the amounts of cash security which was to be refundable to the petitioners stood automatically adjusted as against other dues of the petitioners under the Act, and the said amounts had actually stood refunded to them. Any subsequent embargo placed on the refund of such amounts even with retrospective effect could not entitle the respondents to recover back the refunded amounts from the petitioners. Having given our anxious consideration to the submission m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the obligation imposed by section 29 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the court observed thus: "This proviso, in our opinion, clearly casts a duty upon the assessing authority to adjust the refund due to an assessee towards the outstanding liability of tax or penalty, etc. When a tax liability is to be discharged by an assessee, he can ask the Sales Tax Officer to adjust against such liability any amount which may be refundable to him. Under this proviso, there is a provision for an automatic adjustment so that in a case like the present one, there shall be deemed to have taken place an automatic adjustment of the amount refundable to the assessee against his liability of admitted tax." This provision, in our opinion, obliges the sales tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee would be in order and the appeal filed by him was maintainable. In the case before us, the assessee did not, in his counter-affidavit, anywhere state that at any time, as between 27th September and the month of October, 1982, there was any ascertainment or determination of any tax liability against which the amount in question could have been adjusted. In the circumstances, no question of considering whether the refundable amount could be adjusted or had been adjusted arises. The assessee cannot, relying upon the observations made in the case of Dhingra Mechanical Works [1972] 29 STC 238 (All.); 1971 UPTC 821, claim that the amount stood refunded to it. Apart from this, the observations made in the Division Bench decision that it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
