9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent wing of the Department inspected the petitioner's premises and detected that it failed to disclose certain sales effected to South Central Railway. On the basis of the report, the Deputy Commissioner proposed to revise the assessment exercising powers under section 9(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the 1956 Act") read with section 14(8) and 29(2) of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the 1957 Act"). After a due process including personal hearing, by the order dated August 20, 2003, the Deputy Commissioner revised the assessment under section 14(4)(c) of the 1957 Act. The revised assessment order was served on the petitioner on September 12, 2003. This order also indicates that separate penal action was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where no claim need be made:- (1) Where a refund is due to the assessee or licensee in pursuance of an order referred to in section 33B and the assessing or the licensing authority does not grant the refund within a period of (six months) from the date of such order, the State Government shall pay to the assessee or the licensee simple interest at (twelve per cent) per annum on the amount of refund due from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of six months aforesaid to the date on which the refund is granted. (2) Where the refund is withheld under the provisions of section 33C, the State Government shall pay interest at the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted on October 24, 2011. Thereafter, on November 24, 2011 further time was sought by the learned Special Government Pleader and again on December 27/2011. On December 27, 2011 the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes regarding refund of the amount claimed by the petitioner since the Revenue was procrastinating on the issue of refund and for no justifiable reasons. It is a conjoint submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes that eventually only the principal amount (of the penalty deposited) was paid to the petitioner on February 28, 2012. The interest as statutorily due under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng respondent that after the writ petition was filed, he processed the claim of the petitioner and paid the principal amount without noticing that the petitioner failed to pay interest oh the belated payment of the amount availed of towards sales tax deferment. It is only after refunding the principal amount on February 28, 2012, the answering respondent states to have realized this error and the liability of the petitioner to pay interest and issued a notice dated March 2, 2012 calling upon the petitioner to pay interest on the belated payment. It is the equivocal assertion of the respondent that the petitioner was liable to pay interest on belated payment of the sales tax deferment availed of by it and was thus due amounts to the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein, a company was assessed to tax under the 1957 Act and tax was levied on the disputed turnover, for the assessment year 2003-04. The petitioner preferred an appeal there against under section 19 of the Act challenging the order of assessment dated August 20, 2004 and at the time of filing the appeal, as required under the statute deposited 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax for maintaining the appeal. The appeal was allowed and the order of the assessing authority was set aside. The petitioner was thus entitled to refund of the pre-deposit made while preferring the appeal. Despite repeated representations, there was no order of refund forthcoming. He then filed the writ petition. This court on June 17, 2005 directed the Revenue to fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of by the petitioner was deposited by the petitioner in March, 2009, even prior to the STAT allowing the petitioner's appeal. No steps were taken thereafter by the Revenue to recover the amount of interest allegedly due from the petitioner on the belated payment of the sales tax deferment liability. Such discovery was not made even when the principal amount was refunded to the petitioner on February 28, 2012 and after the filing of the writ petition. It is only when the petitioner was pleading for payment of the interest enjoined by section 33F of the 1957 Act that the Revenue appear to have discovered that the petitioner was liable to pay interest in respect of another transaction. The series of events adverted to above leave us no doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
