9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund due to the petitioner. Oral 2.. The petitioner New India Assurance Company is a nationalised company incorporated under the Companies Act having its offices all over India. For the assessment years 1994-95 to 1996-97, the Assessing Authority held that the petitioner having sold the serviceable/damaged goods, is a dealer and hence liable to pay tax on such sales. Accordingly he levied not only tax but also imposed penalty thereon. Not satisfied with the orders passed by the Assessing Authority, petitioner filed appeals before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad which were dismissed. Petitioner preferred further appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, which were partially allowed. It was held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, dated September 22, 2003 who also failed to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Hence this petition. 5.. Mr. Suman Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the impugned order, annexure P/5, has been passed without application of mind. Referring to the provisions of section 44 of the Act, he submitted that the Assessing Authority has been granted the power to withhold the refund with the prior approval of the Commissioner, if he is of the opinion that the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the recovery subsequently. According to him, in the impugned order, although an observation had been made that the recovery of the amount refunded shall be adversely affected later on, bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner shall be final. (2) The period during which the refund remains so withheld shall be excluded for the purpose of calculation of interest under section 43." 9.. A perusal of the above shows that mere pendency of an appeal or further proceedings against an order is by itself no ground to withhold refund. It is further to be established that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the recovery subsequently. This aspect is totally lacking in the present case. The petitioner is a Government company and it is not understood as to how the assessing officer could form an opinion that in case after the disposal of the review applications by the Tribunal, some demand were to be created, the recovery of the same would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
