9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of taxation under the Constitution of India and the provisions of Sections 9, 18A, 20, 21 and 22 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and - the ultra vires the rights and protections guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or directions, directing the Respondents to refund to the Petitioner: (i) a sum of Rs. 12.38 crores which was collected by the Respondents during the investigation stage in December 2016 (cash payment - Rs. 9.99 crores + refunds adjusted - Rs. 2.39 crores) towards the purported CST liability ( tax and interest), and (ii) a sum of Rs. 2.03 crores, the additional adjustment of refunds made by the Respondents at the assessment stage by the Respondents, towards the purported CST liability. c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to deposit with this Hon'ble Court: (i) a sum of Rs. 12.38 crores which was collected by the Respondents during the investigation stage in D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner that in pursuance of the above order passed by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax had passed two orders dated 31 January, 2019 and 18 March, 2020. However, in passing such orders, the petitioner's case on the entitlement to the refund was not adjudicated. The petitioner, therefore, again approached this Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2021 inter alia praying for a direction that the respondent should be directed to refund to the petitioner the amounts deposited towards the Central Sales Tax along with the deposit as made and also of interest and penal interest, totalling to an amount of Rs. 14. 41 crore paid for F. Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17. The petitioner also assailed the assessment orders. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 27 June, 2022 whereby this Court set aside the orders dated 31 January, 2019 and 18 March, 2020 and remanded the matter for a de novo consideration of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, in terms of what has been observed by this Court in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the order. The said order is required to be noted, which reads thus: "1. Petitioner has approached this court seeking a direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Adjudicating Authority as could be seen from paragraph 2 quoted above is under obligation to grant refund where petitioner was entitled to any refund. The orders of the Adjudicating Authority passed on 31.01.2019 and 18.03.2020 are totally silent on the issue of refund to petitioner. Petitioner therefore has approached this court on the issue of refund as also other points raised in the two orders. 5. Mr. Sonpal states the orders are reasoned, but in fairness agrees with the court that the orders should have dealt with the issue of refund as directed by this Court in the order dated 14.09.2018. 6. In the circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside two orders dated 31.01.2019 and 18.03.2020 passed by Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and remand the matter for de novo consideration. The concerned Adjudicating Authority shall consider all submissions of petitioner and pass a reasoned order dealing with every submission raised by petitioner within 8 weeks from today. 7. Before passing any order, petitioner shall be given a personal hearing and notice of personal hearing shall be given at least seven days in advance. 8. If the Adjudicating Authority is going to rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. The demand being for an amount of Rs. 2,16,09,345/- in the first order dated 25 August, 2023, which is for the period 1 April, 2014 to 31 March, 2015, and in the second order which is for the subsequent period, the demand is of an amount of Rs. 4,41,20,880/-. The said amounts would include the interest and penalty amounts. Insofar as the petitioner's claim for refund as made in the petitioner's application dated 20 June, 2017 is concerned, the assessment orders have negatived the petitioner's refund claim on a reasoning, that although the petitioner had prayed for refund of the amounts, the refund will have to be arrived after the working of the tax liability payable or refundable. It is further observed that, however, the working of tax for this period had resulted in dues, hence, there would not be any question of refund, and for such reason the claim of refund would be required to be rejected. The observation to this effect as made in the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner which is common in both orders is required to be noted, which reads thus: "..... Though the dealer has asked for the refund of said paid amount, the refund claim will be arrive after the working o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of the petitioner. We note that the refund application of the petitioner dated 20 June, 2017 have raised substantive grounds which were required to be dealt with reasons. However, considering the meager reasons, as recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax which we have been extracted hereinabove, we are clearly of the opinion that such reasons are surely not sufficient so as to amount to an appropriate adjudication of the refund claim of the petitioner, as the law would mandate. 9. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer/Deputy Commissioner of State Tax needs to de novo consider the proceedings and pass appropriate assessment orders, which may be a consolidated order or otherwise, however, by furnishing appropriate reasons on the refund application of the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. We, accordingly, dispose of this petition in terms of the above directions keeping open all contentions of the parties. Let appropriate orders be passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax after hearing the petitioner within a period of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
