9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue appear to have discovered that the petitioner was liable to pay interest in respect of another transaction - conduct of the respondent was unfair and arbitrary - writ petition is allowed - Writ Petition No. 28477 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2012 - Goda Raghuram and N. Ravi Shankar, JJ S. Dwarakanath for the Petitioner B. Venkatadri, Special SC for Commercial Taxes for the Respondent ORDER The order of the court was made by:- Goda Raghuram, J:- For the assessment year 1997-98, the Commercial Tax Officer concerned completed the assessment and passed an assessment order dated August 16, 1999. The petitioner is doing business in supply of pre-stressed concrete sleepers to the South Central Railways. The enf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposits 25 per cent of the penalty determined, i.e., 25 per cent of Rs. 3,22,25,365. The petitioner has deposited this penalty amount. Eventually, by the order dated October 23, 2009, the Tribunal allowed the petitioner's appeal and set aside the revisional order dated September 5, 2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner levying penalty. As a consequence of the order dated October 23, 2009 of the STAT and in view of the fact that no revision or other remedy there against was pursued by the Revenue, the petitioner was entitled to refund of 25 per cent of the penalty amount deposited pursuant to the order of this court and pending the appeal before the STAT. Section 33F of the 1957 Act reads as under:- "33F. Interest on refund where n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner submitted a representation on June 14, 2010 requesting the Deputy Commissioner to refund the amount deposited by it towards penalty. However no action having ensued for refunding the amount by the Revenue, the petitioner filed the writ petition for refund of the amount together with interest with effect from April 25, 2010, as enjoined under the provisions of section 33F of the 1957 Act. The writ petition was filed on October 19, 2011 and when it was presented before the Bench on October 24, 2011, the learned Special Government Pleader sought time to obtain instructions stating that necessary steps are being taken to refund the amount. Three weeks time was granted on October 24, 2011. Thereafter, on November 24, 2011 further t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had availed of sales tax deferment for the period 1998-99 to 2002-03 in a sum of Rs. 58,03,125 ; had stopped production from March, 2004 onwards ; and in view of the conditions in the final eligibility certificate, the petitioner has to carry on its business till 2024. As the petitioner violated the conditions of that certification, it is liable to pay the entire amount availed of as sales tax deferment. Notices dated May 24, 2004 and December 21, 2005 were issued requesting the petitioner to pay the amount availed of towards sales tax deferment. The petitioner paid the amount (of the sales tax deferment benefit) in March, 2009. It is the further contention of the answering respondent that after the writ petition was filed, he processed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the hearing today that any order was passed by the assessing authority with the previous approval of the concerned Deputy Commissioner for withholding either the amount of refund due to the petitioner (consequent on T. A. No. 353 of 2004 having been allowed by the Tribunal on October 23, 2009) or that any such order was passed in exercise of the power under section 33C even for withholding the interest component due under section 33F of the 1957 Act. In Mukunda Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Narasaraopet [2006] 144 STC 177 (AP), a learned Division Bench of this court considered a somewhat apposite raft of circumstances. The petitioner therein, a company was assessed to tax under the 1957 Act and tax was levied on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STAT dated October 23, 2009 allowing T. A. No. 353 of 2004) no steps were taken despite repeated representations of the petitioner till the writ petition was filed. There is no scintilla of explanation by the respondent for the inaction in processing the petitioner's claim for refund since October 23, 2009 except a jejune plea that the first respondent (the answering respondent) had assumed office as Commercial Tax Officer on June 1, 2011. It is not as if the Commercial Tax Officer, Maharajgunj come into being with the answering respondent's incumbency. Public offices are a continuum. Be that as it may. The principal amount of the tax deferment benefit availed of by the petitioner was deposited by the petitioner in March, 2009, even prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
