9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n done by the assessing authority and a report submitted, there is no useful purpose in maintaining the order of remand as passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the revision is allowed in part and the order of the Tribunal dated January 25, 2011 is modified only to the extent it remands the matter for verification of refund of the aforesaid amount. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 124 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 25-5-2011 - PANKAJ MITTAL, J. Piyush Agrawal and Bharat Ji Agrawal for the petitioner The C.S.C. for the respondent JUDGEMENT The revisionist is a registered partnership-firm engaged in the business of construction of roads and supply of gitti and rori . The revisionist as per the contract entered into with Rosa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellate authority though accepted form F but refused to recognise the refund of ₹ 5,32,742 and saddled the revisionist with the liability to pay aforesaid amount of tax. Aggrieved the revisionist preferred further appeal to the Commercial tax Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated January 25, 2011 allowed the appeal by reducing the tax liability confirmed by the first appellate authority but remanded the matter to the assessing authority for the limited purpose of verifying the correctness/validity of the refund of ₹ 5,32,742 to RPSCL. It is against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated January 25, 2011 that the revisionist has preferred this revision only on the limited point that under the aforesaid facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t where any amount has been realised from any person by any dealer by way of tax on sale or purchase of goods in contravention of provisions of sections 22 and 23, such dealer shall deposit the amount so realised with the Department within time prescribed under section 24 of the Act. A reading of the aforesaid provisions demonstrates that the tax amount realised by the dealer in contravention of provisions of sections 22 and 23 is liable to be deposited with the Department within time prescribed under section 24 of the Act and, as such, there is no bar upon the dealer from refunding the tax realised by him to the person concerned, if it is not realised in violation of provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Act. It is not the case tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refunded the entire amount wrongly realised, the assessing authority has to make enquiry from the purchasers paying such tax and if the amount is found to have been refunded, to pass appropriate order in this regard. In the present case such an enquiry has been made and it has been found that the revisionist has refunded the amount of ₹ 5,72,742 to the purchaser RPSCL who owe the liability to pay the tax. Thus, the liability to pay/deposit the said amount cannot be fastened upon the revisionist. In the facts and circumstances detailed above, as necessary verification with regard to the refund of the above amount has already been done by the assessing authority and a report submitted, there is no useful purpose in maintaining th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
