9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for directing the respondents to grant exemption from payment of central sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and further directing the authorities to refund the amount of tax already paid. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in the business of manufacturing crank shafts and heavy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h some other concessions were granted to the petitioner, however, the benefit of concessional rate of central sales tax was not granted, as a result of which the petitioner per force paid 4% central sales tax to the State. As the payable rate was 1%, it deserves refund of 3%. The submission is that the petitioner was not at fault, as delay was on the part of the State in granting the benefit for w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat their products are cheaper on account of certain concessions granted and not that the tax collected is permitted to be retained. Presently, the benefit is not available for the reason that the entire tax regime has changed, as it has shifted to one uniform Goods and Service Tax, which takes care of taxes on intra-State, inter-State sales and also excise duty. After hearing learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4% from its customers and paid the same to the State. Once the amount has been charged by the petitioner from its customers as tax and paid to the State, it cannot be permitted to retain the same, as otherwise the same would amount to unjust enrichment. If the petitioner was aggrieved of any in-action on the part of the State at the relevant time when the expanded unit came into production, on ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
