TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1990-91. The background of each of the cases is similar. For the sake of convenience, we may pick up the fact of the matter from W.P. No. 30588 of 2010. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the rolls of the first respondent, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. For the assessment year 1983-84, the petitioner's assessment was finalised on October 15, 1987. However, having regard to the verification report of the Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement), the first respondent revised the assessment order on March 9, 1988 levying tax of ₹ 53,203 at four per cent on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0588 of 2010, the fact of the petitioner paying the disputed tax is not denied. It is, however, stated that the Joint Commissioner (Legal) revised the assessment order for the year 1983-84 under section 20(2) of the Act by proceedings dated March 16, 1991 on the issue relating to tax on packing material and pursuant thereto, the first respondent raised a demand of ₹ 3,03,305. Although the petitioner is entitled to refund of ₹ 52,503, the first respondent stated that the demand raised towards tax against the petitioner is ₹ 38,12,044 for the years 1984-85 to 1992-93, both under the APGST and CST Acts and that the amount refundable was adjusted. In all the counter-affidavits the same plea is taken. The petitioner has not fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wards refund, still huge arrears are due from the petitioner. Richardson Cruddas (1972) Ltd. [2001] 33 APSTJ 187 (AP), was a case, which construed section 33B read with section 33F of the APGST Act. In the background of the case, the question was whether the assessee was entitled to claim interest at 12 per cent per annum when the amount of tax was not refunded by the concerned authority. Interpreting both the provisions, it was held that if an amount is not refunded within a period of six months as contemplated under section 33F, the assessee would be entitled to interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum. The question in this case, however, is whether the petitioner can maintain these writ petitions for refund and interest after a lapse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time-barred debt. The provisions in the present case are statutory provisions for coercive recovery of 'amounts due'. Although the necessity of filing a suit by a creditor is avoided, the extent of the claim which is legally recoverable is not thereby enlarged. Under section 70(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act the right of a debtor to file a suit for refund is expressly preserved. Instead of the bank or the financial institution filing a suit which is defended by the debtor, the creditor first recovers and then defends his recovery in a suit filed by the debtor. The rights of the parties are not thereby enlarged. The process of recovery is different. An Act must expressly provide for such enlargement of claims which are legall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question would be adjudicated in these proceedings. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner did not approach the assessing officer or this court within a reasonable time. There is a long delay in filing these writ petitions. Except making an allegation in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition that the petitioner made repeated representations, they are not placed before this court. Even otherwise, the petitioner's cause of action must be held to have arisen immediately after six months after expiry of the period from the date of making such representation in case such representation was made (S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 10). These writ petitions, in our considered opinion, are therefore barred by d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|