9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of filing of the refund applications, i.e., May 2, 1997 till the date of payment. In favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 80 of the OST Rules and remitted the matter back to the ACST for examination/ verification of correctness of details of the payment said to have been made by the NALCO to the petitioner. The ACST by its order dated June 15, 2001, dropped the suo motu proceeding for the year 1984-85 on the ground that the order passed by the STO for the said year was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and, for the year 1985-86, he marginally reduced the amount of refund from Rs. 1,86,541 to Rs. 1,76,185. Thereafter, on July 12, 2001, the STO rejected the petitioner's refund applications dated May 2, 1997 on the ground that the case was sub judice before the honourable High Court and, therefore, the refund applications had no merit to be considered. Hence, the present writ petitions. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the STO has rejected the refund applications without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is violative of sub-rule (2) of rule 39 of the OST Rules. The refund applications were supposed to be disposed of within a period of ninety days from the date of filing of refund applications, i.e., by A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001. The suo motu revision initiated by the ACST for the year 1984-85 was finally dropped and for the year 1985-86, the refund was marginally reduced to Rs. 1,76,185. The orders of assessment attained finality on June 15, 2001 and the petitioner's refund applications dated May 2, 1997 were rejected vide impugned orders dated July 12, 2001. Challenging the impugned orders, the petitioner approached this court on September 4, 2001. Section 14 provides that the Commissioner shall, in the prescribed manner, refund to a dealer applying in this behalf any amount of tax, penalty or interest paid by such dealer in excess of the amount due from him under the OST Act, either by cash payment or by deduction of such excess amount from the amount of tax, penalty or interest due in respect of any other period. Thus, for claiming refund under section 14 there must be an order of assessment or an order imposing penalty or a final order passed in appeal or revision/reference granting refund. In the present case, the petitioner's right to get refund flows from the orders of reassessment dated March 29, 1997 and, accordingly, the petitioner made applications for refund on May 2, 1997. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T dropped the proceeding for the year 1984-85 and marginally reduced the amount of refund from Rs. 1,86,541 to Rs. 1,76,185 for the year 1985-86. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by opposite party No. 1 rejecting the petitioner's refund applications dated May 2, 1997 on July 12, 2001 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed. The second question relates to payment of interest on the refund amount. The STO should always release the amount of refund claimed in the refund applications within a period of ninety days from the date of application, if it is found correct in all respect, otherwise the dealer claiming refund shall be entitled to interest on the refund amount. In that event, it would be an unnecessary financial burden on the State exchequer, which should always be avoided. This court in Orient Paper Mills v. State of Orissa [1988] 70 STC 333, held that refund applications should not be kept pending without being attended to by the Sales Tax Officer for years together. Resorting to quick action after long delay just to disallow interest to an assessee is a fraud on the statute and cannot be condoned. The court awarded interest under such c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
