9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T HIGH COURT ] wherein the court turned down the contention that while giving effect to section 54(1)(aa) of the Act, the effect would be available to the assessment made by the assessing authority only and not the further modification made by the first appellate authority or thereafter, the second appellate authority or even third appellate authority, as the case may be. The court held that the interpretation canvassed by the revenue of section 54(1) (aa) of the Act, if accepted, would run counter to the basic principles of the doctrine of merger which is a well accepted doctrine incorporated in the system of administration of justice. The refund claim of the assessee, therefore, cannot be stated to have arisen from an order other than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of its actual refund on the principal amount of Rs.1,28,63,365/-. 3. The facts stated briefly are that the reassessment orders came to be passed by the assessing authority in the case of the petitioner in February, 2006 and the demand of Rs.2,82,95,996/- was raised for financial year 1998-99, against which the petitioner paid Rs.1,41,47,998/- on 29.8.2006. Thus, the petitioner had made payment against the demand raised by the assessing authority and had preferred an appeal against the assessment order. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal in the year 2014 granting partial relief to the petitioner and revised the demand to Rs.12,84,633/- for financial year 1998-99. Accordingly, the petitioner became entitled to a refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in the case of M/s Syngenta Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (supra), this court has placed reliance upon another decision of this court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Doshi Printing Press, [2015]82 VST 384 (Guj.); against which, the State of Gujarat has approached the Supreme Court and that the matter is pending adjudication, and hence, the decision of this court has not attained finality. It was submitted that the present case would fall within the ambit of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 54 of the Act inasmuch as the refund claim arises out of an order of the appellate authority and not an order of assessment, and, therefore, the petitioner is not justified i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... system of administration of justice. Relying upon the above decision, the court held that when the statutory appellate authority allows the appeal of an assessee, it only corrects the order of assessment. In other words, he gives legal shape to the contours of the matter, which in any case the Assessing Officer should have adopted. Therefore, in terms of section 54(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, in such a situation, it cannot be stated that the refund claim of the assessee arises out of an order other than an order of assessment. The appellate authority while allowing the appeal merely corrected the assessment. It is such corrected assessment which would prevail. The refund claim of the assessee, therefore, cannot be stated to have arisen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
