9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitions is for a direction upon the respondent to revise the excess entry tax paid by the petitioner for the relevant assessment years. 3. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of the tractors having its factory in the State of Haryana and depots and branches in several places including Chennai. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Act (TNGST Act) and at present Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT Act) as well as under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles in Local Areas Act, 1990 (Entry Tax Act). The petitioner's case is that in terms of Section 3(1) of the Entry Tax Act, there is a liability towards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y tax towards the liability under the TNGST Act. However, after adjustment there was an excess entry tax payment for every assessment year which have been refunded to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner approached the respondent by way of a representation to effect refund of the excess entry tax paid by them. This application was rejected by the respondent by an order dated 21.05.2010 on the ground that the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Khivraj Motors vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) reported in 139 STC 233 has been challenged by way of filing writ appeals before the Hon'ble Division Bench and since the appeals are pending application for refund cannot be considered. The petitioner challenged this order b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and pass orders, taking into account the said orders passed in the Writ Appeals, within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs." 4. Thus in terms of the above direction, the matter has been remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration and to pass orders within a period of two weeks. Though this order was passed in 2010, for six long years the respondent has not passed any orders. Even in these writ petitions counter has not been filed but para-wise instructions have been given. Certain paragraphs in the written instructions given to the Government Advocate by the respondent are in fact the findings rendered by the respondent while pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court before the Nine Judge Bench. Therefore, the respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. So far as the issue relating to the validity of the Entry Tax Act which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has since delivered judgment. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has not challenged the provision of the Entry Tax Act and their only prayer is that after adjustment the excess entry tax paid by the petitioner stated to be from and out of their own funds should be ordered to be refunded. The specific case of the petitioner is that this liability has not been passed on to the customers. Thus, since there is a binding direction issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
