9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : 1. To set aside revision notice of assessment dated July 11, 2011 ; 2. To direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 40,00,000.00 to the petitioner ; and 3. To direct the respondents to pay interest at 1 per cent. per month for the delay in granting the refund. 3. The petitioner was a registered dealer under the Telangana Value Added tax Act, 2005 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the "VAT Act"). Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing pre-engineered steel buildings. 4. For the assessment period 2008-09, assessment order was passed by the first respondent on June 8, 2009 under the VAT Act levying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary 31, 2012. Both the amounts were deposited by the petitioner by way of cheques, which were encashed by respondent No. 2. 8. Though respondent No. 2 issued final notice of hearing on March 24, 2012, no order of revision was passed by respondent No. 2 thereafter. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted application dated June 21, 2017 before the second respondent stating that following the order passed by this court, the initial order of revision dated July 29, 2011 was set aside where after no fresh order of revision was passed. Since the limitation period of three years provided under section 37 of the VAT Act had expired, the petitioner sought for refund of the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- as paid by it. This was reiterated by subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), decided on April 15, 2019, to contend that the respondents are under an obligation to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner with adequate interest, as holding on to such deposit made by the petitioner would be in contravention of article 265 of the Constitution of India Rs. 40,00,000/- deposit made by the petitioner cannot be construed to be payment of tax. It was a mere pre-deposit in anticipation of quantification of tax, which did not materialize. Therefore, he submits that the respondents may be directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner with adequate interest. 13. Mr. K. Raji Reddy, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents submits that following the order passed by this court dated August 30, 2011( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Though respondent No. 2 had issued notices dated November 10, 2011 and March 24, 2012 for hearing, which was attended to by the petitioner, no order of revision came to be passed. 16. When the revisional order was set aside by this court, the consequence was that the original assessment order stood restored and continues till date since no fresh order of revision has been passed on remand. 17. Section 37 of the VAT Act deals with limitation in respect of assessments and reassessments, etc., upon remand. Section 37 of the VAT Act is extracted hereunder : "37. Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 21 and 32 where an assessment, reassessment, rectification in or revision of an assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revising authority. 19. In the instant case, the remand order of the High Court is dated August 30, 2011(Kirby Building Systems India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner (CT) [2012] 56 VST 230 (AP)). Though date of receipt of the order of the High Court is not on record, it can safely be presumed that when second respondent had issued consequential notice dated November 10, 2011 for hearing, it would mean that before that date, it had received copy of the High Court's order. There is also no dispute to the fact that in anticipation of a revisional order levying higher taxes, petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 40,00,000 in two tranches though under protest. Insofar the levy of tax under the assessment order dated June 8, 2009 is concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT Act. The petitioners therefore, submitted that no action was initiated so far by the Department to adjudicate the matter pursuant to the amount collected for the year 2006-2007. The petitioners also submitted that the time-limit for passing the order for revision/ reassessment as per the provisions under the GVAT Act has already expired. Thus in facts of the case, respondent-authorities are with holding the amount paid under protest by the petitioners for the year 2006-2007 without there being any assessment, reassessment or revision order being passed by the authorities under the provisions of Act Since the action of the respondent-authorities in retaining the amount deposited by the petitioners under protest, is not backed by any autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
