9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods February to July, 2014 (in both the writ petitions. 2. Factual matrix reads as under: Both petitioners are registered dealers under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short Rs. Act') engaged in the business of extraction and sale of sunflower oil out of sunflower cake used as input and sale of solvent bran oil from rice bran used as input. For the period February, 2014 to July, 2014 petitioners claimed partial rebate as per section 17 of the Act contending interalia that sunflower cake and rice bran used as input in the extraction of sunflower oil/bran oil. Subsequently Division Bench of this court rendered Judgment in the case of M/s.M.K.Agro Tech (Private) Limited, Mandya District Vs State of Karnataka& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As such respondents have not processed the applications for refund of input tax claimed by petitioners. Hence, petitioners are before this court seeking for direction to respondents to refund the amounts claimed by petitioners under their respective returns Annexures-C to C-5. 3. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties namely Sri.T.N.Keshava Murthy for petitioners and Sri.T.K.Vedamurthy, learned HCGP for respondents. By consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 4. Sri.T.N.Keshava Murthy, learned counsel appearing for petitioners by reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would contend that under sub-section(3) of&nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by petitioner and sub-section(5) of Section 10 itself provides for refund of such excess input tax payable to the dealer which had been paid by the dealer and as such Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment would not apply. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and after bestowing my careful and anxious considerations to the contentions raised by respective learned advocates it requires to be noticed at the outset that question of unjust enrichment in the instant case does not arise at all inasmuch as language of sub-section(5) of section 10 is clear and unambiguous. It would clearly indicate that where the input tax deductable by a dealer exceeds the output tax payable by him the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at would not attract the provisions of Section 17 of the Act relating to partial rebate. It has been held as under: "11. In this case it is not in dispute that the assessee is in the business of sale and manufacture of sunflower oil from sunflower oil cake had applied solvent extraction process. He did not set up any industrial unit for the purpose of manufacturing de-oiled cake. The entire raw material named as sunflower cake purchased is for the manufacture of sunflower oil. But, in the process, after the entire sunflower oil is extracted, de-oiled cake remains. The said de-oiled cake also has a value. He cannot keep that de-oiled cake in his premises as it could occupy a large ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable." 10. In that view of the matter this court is of the considered view that petitioners would be entitled for the relief sought for in the present writ petitions. Hence, following: ORDER 1. Writ petitions are hereby allowed. 2. A direction is issued to first respondent to process the applications of petitioners for refund Annexure-B and refund the amounts claimed by them if not otherwise being disentitled to forthwith. 3. In the event of refund of tax is ordered, respondents would be at liberty to obtain Indemnity Bond from the petitioners at the time of issuing such refunds, on petitioners furnishing such Indemnity Bond to the extent of the amount being refunded by respondents and such r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
