9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent department that the petitioner Company had paid the differential amount in the years concerned but the same is paid during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the same as the respondent authorities have already, while considering the challans for the assessment year 1999-2000 has granted refund to the petitioner Company. Petition allowed. - Special Civil Application No. 21781 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 22-12-2017 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A. S. SUPEHIA, JJ. For The Petitioner : M/s Wadiaghandy And Co, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Chintan Dave, AGP ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. S. SUPEHIA) (1) RULE . Learned Assistant Government Plead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent authorities, inter alia , requesting for the refund of excess amount of ₹ 15,00,000/along with interest thereon. Since nothing was done, the petitioner Company was constrained to file Special Civil Application No.12689 of 2017 seeking directions to the respondent authorities to refund the amount of ₹ 15,00,000/with interest. By the order dated 04.08.2017 this court disposed of the said petition with the following directions: I. The petitioners shall apply before the competent authority on or before 21.08.2017 and produce necessary documents along with affidavits pointing out that the differential duty was borne by the petitioner and not passed on to the purchasers. ii. It shall be open to the authorities to ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents that all the documents asked for cannot be collected, however, the sales summary along with sample invoices are available and they are being submitted, which is sufficient to prove that there is no element of unjust enrichment. The respondent authorities, by the letter dated 09.10.2017, inter alia , again sought for the details and documents, which the petitioner Company had already stated were not in its custody and/or possession. The petitionerCompany reiterated the fact that after 15 years it was impossible to collect the documents requested by the respondent authorities by the letter dated 16.10.2017. Since the respondent authorities did not grant the refund to the petitionerCompany, they are constrained to approach thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts as emerging from the record, it is evident that all along it was the case of the petitioner that its products viz. Stainless Steel Wire Mesh which would be covered by entry 182(4) of schedule II to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 which attracted tax liability @ 6% and not by the residuary entry 195 which attracted tax liability @ 12%. The petitioner at the relevant time collected and paid sales tax 6 9 at the rate of 6% which is evidenced by the sample invoices produced before the authorities. In February, 2001, the petitioner made an application for determination of the applicable rate of tax on its product. At the same time, with a view to avoid huge liability of interest and penalty, on 23.03.2001, the petitioner paid a total amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
