9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that during the assessment year 1980-81 the petitioner deposited the tax on carbon papers and stencil papers at the rate of 8 per cent on the sale of goods amounting to Rs. 43,13,739.67. The said rate of tax was realised by the petitioner from the customers which, in fact, was in excess of 2 per cent on the said goods which works out to an amount of Rs. 86,274. The said excess amount along with total tax at 8 per cent, which is not in dispute, was actually deposited with the respondents. The assessing authority imposed a tax on turnover of carbon papers and stencil papers at the rate of 6 per cent. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed on July 11, 1988. The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of the final order on appeal, revision or reference, if any, in respect thereof, whichever is later." By virtue of sub-section (1) if any amount is realised from any person by a dealer towards sales tax or purchase tax which is in contravention of section 8-A(2) then such dealer shall deposit the entire amount so realised with the respondents. In the present case the petitioner has deposited the amount in terms of this sub-section with the respondents which is not in dispute. Sub- section (2) provides that such amount deposited by any dealer to the extent it is not due as tax is held by the State in trust for the person from whom it was realised. Sub-section (3) provides where any amount is deposited under sub- section (1), then on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s prescribed under any provision of statute, the things should be done in the manner as prescribed therein. However, in the present case the procedure under sub-section (3) of section 29-A was to be prescribed for refund of the amount deposited with the respondents to the customers. On behalf of the respondents it is conceded till rules are framed in 1993 there is no procedure prescribed for the refund of the said excess amount deposited. Hence there was no procedure under which the said amount was to be refunded. So far the petitioner, after coming to know that he has realised excess tax on 2 per cent and knowing his customers, has refunded all such excess amount to such dealers, and submitted with the assessing authority the details of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efer to proviso to section 29-A. According to this no such claim is entertained after the expiry of three years from the date of order of assessment or one year from the date of final order in appeal, revision or reference. In the present case the appeal itself was decided on July 11, 1988 and even after years there was no procedure prescribed by the State. If the argument of the respondent is to be accepted, then merely by not providing the procedure the amount stands forfeited and will be with the State. Such a conception cannot be accepted. It is always to be kept in mind that procedure prescribed under law is towards giving substantial justice to a party. The procedure is not an obstacle for providing justice. In case where two possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
