9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e admitted tax to the tune of Rs. 7,79,481.62 and also availed of some rebate, the petitioner was directed to pay the balance tax of Rs. 9,70,329.42. This order was ultimately challenged before the Tribunal in second appeal and the Sales Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 73(C) of 1979-80 disposed of on 6th January, 1980 allowed the appeal, set aside the order disallowing concessional rate of tax as claimed and remitted the case back on remand to the assessing officer with a direction to allow the concessional rate of tax as claimed if the declarations in form-9 are otherwise found to be in order. Subsequent to this order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed an application for refund on 5th February, 1980 on the ground that there being no l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the two Bench decisions of this Court, there is no escape from the conclusion that opposite party No. 3 committed a gross error of law in rejecting the petitioner's application for refund. 3.. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Revenue in this case, yet the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department, raises two contentions in support of the order of refusal passed by opposite party No. 3, namely,- (i) in view of section 14-D of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the order of the Sales Tax Officer must be construed to be one in exercise of that power; and (ii) in view of insertion of the proviso to sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tax Tribunal. But since more than eight years have elapsed, we think that reassessment must have been done in the meantime. In that view of the matter, we do not find any force in the petitioner's contention that a direction be given to the opposite parties to refund the amount which the petitioner had during the subsistence of petitioner's appeal before the lower authorities. In the circumstances, as stated above, we would direct that the petitioner may make an application for refund if after the reassessment made by the assessing officer pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is still entitled to some amount to be refunded to him. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. There will be no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
