9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est statutorily mandated, a conduct to be deprecated. Thus the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of refund due and credited to the petitioner, i.e., 15,40,07,843 for the period July 26, 2004 to November 15, 2011. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner informed the third respondent that the arrears of ₹ 80,86,88,184 under the 1957 Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 were not payable by the petitioner and that collection of entry tax under the 2001 Act was stayed by the STAT. It so transpired that subsequently the appeals were also allowed by the STAT. The petitioner further informed the third respondent that an amount of ₹ 37.96 crores relating to equated rebate in terms of certain Government orders dated November 30, 1967, September 11, 1990 and March 23, 1994 were pending with the Revenue; and by a further letter dated August 27, 2004 expressed its willingness for adjustment of ₹ 2,09,573 relating to tax due for the year 1999-2000 as per the final assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing or the licensing authority does not grant 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 12 per cent per annum on the amount due from the date of expiry of the period of six months to the date on which the refund is granted. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of assessment dated November 18, 2003 was made pursuant to an order by the appellate authority and therefore the provisions of section 33F apply. An assertion not disputed by the Revenue. In view of the provisions of section 33F, the liability to refund the amount of ₹ 15.49 crores consequent on the order of assessment dated November 18, 2003 arises after a per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondents by the third respondent is stated to be rejected. The liability of the petitioner under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act, 2001 was the subject-matter of the appeals preferred before the STAT and not the liability under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2001 Entry Tax Act was declared unconstitutional by this court in Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2008] 13 VST 15 (AP); [2008] 46 APSTJ 1. On such declaration the Act becomes non est and inoperative from its nativity. Further the Appellate Tribunal (STAT) had also allowed the appeals even according to the counter-affidavit. There is a further fact that requires to be noticed, namely, adjustment of ₹ 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
