2015 (12) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . ORDER This revision petition challenges the order dated March 23, 1998 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter "the Board"). 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of tin containers and mustard oil, etc. The asses sing officer vide order dated September 5, 1995 directed that an amount of Rs. 2,24,936 resulting from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of refund was not within the scope of section 23(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter "1954 Act"). He submits that in the case at hand no excess deposit of tax was made by the assessee, but he was held entitled to a refund by the assessing officer only on account of the benefit of set-off. 5. To appreciate the contention it would be beneficial to reproduce section 23 of the 195 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y. Money only has time value, i.e., the value is diluted with time. Interest compensates for dilution of money value. If the contention of the OIC were to be upheld, the assessee's entitlement to refund for reasons of set-off he would be made to bleed with passage of time and be left with no recourse. Such an interpretation would also confer arbitrary powers in the hands of the Department to h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X