9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the business of manufacturing and selling of Stainless Steel Wire Mesh. For assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, the products of the petitioner Company was wrongly classified and tax liability was imposed on higher rate due to such wrong classification. The same was the subject matter of challenge before the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (the Tribunal) and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 25.10.1999. The same was further carried before this court in Sales Tax Reference No.3 of 2004. By the judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed therein, the Division Bench of this court declared that Stainless Steel Wire Mesh is covered under Entry 182(iv), Schedule II, Part A of the Act and not under the Residuary Entry i.e. Entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner applies to the authority within the time provided, the entire exercise shall be completed latest by 31.10.2017. (3) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner Company, vide communication dated 18.08.2017 filed an affidavit of the authorized person on oath that the burden of differential duty is not passed on the purchaser and hence, the refund of tax would not amount to unjust enrichment. The petitioner Company also issued sample invoices to indicate that liability of differential amount is entirely borne by the petitioner Company. The challans evidencing ad hoc payment of excess tax was also annexed to the said letter. (4) In response to the aforesaid communication, respondent No.3, vide letter dated 24.08.2017 called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence or tax appeals were pending. She has submitted that after lapse of 15 years the petitioner Company has the copy of challans, which were already submitted to the respondent authorities. She has submitted that as per the directions of this court in the aforesaid order, the petitioner Company has also filed the necessary affidavit pointing out that differential duty was borne by the petitioner Company. In view of the above, she has contended that the stand of the respondent department is absolutely unjust, and they may be directed to suitably refund the amount in question. (6) Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Chintan Dave appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities has submitted that the aforesaid documents are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 6% and paid the same. The excess amount was paid by the petitioner only in the year 2001 to avoid liability of interest and penalty. It cannot be gainsaid that in respect of sales made during the period 199596 to 19992000, the petitioner could not have recovered the additional tax from its customers and must have paid it out of its own funds. The question of unjust enrichment therefore, does not arise. Moreover, for the Year 1999-2000, the respondent authorities have already granted the benefit of refund of Rs. 50,000/. (8) In this view of the matter, when the petitioner Company has already produced the challans of the assessment years 1994-95 and 199596, which indicate that the amount was deposited by the petitioner Company on 23.03.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
