9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain objections which have also been replied by the petitioner - the petitioner may be sure in succeeding the refund applications pending before respondent no. 2 and howsoever tall may be the claim of the petitioner, but respondent no. 2 has yet to decide these refund applications - Respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the refund applications preferred by the petitioner for different years at the earliest, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. - WP (T) No. 1908 of 2013, WP (T) No. 1907 of 2013, WP (T) No. 1926 of 2013, WP (T) No. 1933 of 2013, WP (T) No. 1939 of 2013, WP (T) No. 1941 of 2013, WP (T) No. 1942 of 2013 - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s read with the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 31st July, 2003 in W.P. (T) No. 2587 of 2003, to be read with the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 57 and even interlocutory application preferred by the State in the Civil Appeal No. 10272 of 2003, which has been disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that refund applications were preferred which are at Annexure8 onwards to the W.P. (T) No. 1908 of 2013, but the respondent authorities have not decided the same and has not, therefore, refunded the purchase tax i.e. sales tax paid by this petitioner on purchase of raw materials from M/s Tata Motors Limited for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven by this Court, in accordance with law. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner are binding to the respondent State. Nonetheless, in the matter of refund, it is not automatic that whenever there is Excess Demand of Tax, mechanically the same has to be refunded. In fact, there is bound to be applications for refund by the assessee, supported by necessary documents thereafter the same has to be decided by the respondent authorities and, thereafter, refund can be given. In the facts of the present case, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applications of refund preferred by the petitioner for different years are pending before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avour which was one of the condition for grant of exemption under the Bihar Industrial Policy, 1995, therefore, the petitioner preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2689 of 2000 which was dismissed by the Division Bench and Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20375 of 2000 and 20376 of 2000 was preferred before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the question was prevailed upon the Government and they had reviewed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and as the process of refund was going on and the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Government and ultimately the Government has rejected the claim of exemption of the petitioner under the Bihar Industrial Policy, 1995 vide order dated 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut defects in the refund applications preferred by the petitioner for different years that refund applications have not been filed in statutory Form no. XX and the Excess Demand Notice under statutory Form no. XV has not been annexed with the application form. It further appears with annexure of the writ petition that a detailed and longish reply has been given by the petitioner that there is no need to prefer refund application in Form no. XX and there is no need of annexing the Excess Demand Notice with the refund application preferred by the petitioner and, thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ of Mandamus. 10. Thus, it appears that already refund applications are preferred by the petitionerfor diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the refund applications pending before respondent no. 2 and howsoever tall may be the claim of the petitioner, but respondent no. 2 has yet to decide these refund applications. We therefore direct respondent no. 2 to decide the refund applications preferred by the petitioner for different years at the earliest, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. These refund applications will be decided by respondent no. 2, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Governmental policy, applicable to the petitioner and also keeping in mind the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including which are referred in the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
