9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ually remitted the tax - Held that:- the provisions of section 25 of the Act has to be given a liberal interpretation, as ultimately, it is the petitioner, who has suffered the riots and had paid the tax, may be through the registered dealer, from whom the purchases were made, the fact remains that the actual recovery of tax is made from the petitioner through registered dealer and, therefore, the benefit of section 25 of the Act should be extended to the petitioner. As the State Government has overlooked this aspect of the matter and the action of the State Government to deny the benefit of section 25 of the Act, as done, would frustrate the very purpose, for which the benefit indicated under section 25 of the Act is made, the State G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 of 2006 and an order was passed on 7th of March, 2008 remitting the matter back to the State Government for consideration. The State Government considered the matter and finally rejected the same, therefore, this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that various purchases were made by the petitioner from various registered dealers and for the purchases so made, tax was collected from the petitioners by registered dealer, which was actually paid by the petitioner and consequently, deposited by the registered dealer to the Revenue. On the ground that for the stock, which was purchased by the petitioner from the registered dealer, the petitioner has paid tax through the registered dealer, from whom stock was purchased, an appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of tax payable by him, ordinarily within ten days from the date of such occurrence. It is clear from the aforesaid that on account of the riots that took place in the year 1984, when certain business establishments belonging to the Sikkh Community were destroyed, the State Government granted the benefit of remission from payment of tax as contemplated under section 25 of the Act and appropriate orders were passed. To that effect, there is no dispute. The fact as to whether, the petitioner is liable to the benefit of remission of tax under section 25 of the Act is to be considered. The State Government has rejected this contention on two counts ; one, the petitioner has not paid any tax, and, second, the tax, if any paid, is by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In fact, we are of the considered view that the provisions of section 25 of the Act has to be given a liberal interpretation, as ultimately, it is the petitioner, who has suffered the riots and had paid the tax, may be through the registered dealer, from whom the purchases were made, the fact remains that the actual recovery of tax is made from the petitioner through registered dealer and, therefore, the benefit of section 25 of the Act should be extended to the petitioner. If the contention of the State Government is accepted, the purpose of incorporating section 25 of the Act would be frustrated. There may be cases, where, tax is recovered from a registered dealer may not be direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
