S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition Nos. 234 and 235 of 2009. Case: Saboo Cement Industries Vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Ward-5. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition Nos. 234 and 235 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Anuroop Singhi, Kushagra Sharma and Saurabh Jain, Advs. And For Respondents: R.B. Mathur and Tanvi Sahai, Advs. |
| Judges | J. K. Ranka, J. |
| Issue | Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Sections 10, 16(1)(b), 3, 4(e)(i), 5, 7, 7(2), 8 |
| Citation | 2015 (80) VST 72 (Raj) |
| Judgement Date | January 09, 2015 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Order:
J. K. Ranka, J.
-
These two sales tax revision petitions are directed against the order dated August 18, 2009 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board (in short, "the Tax Board") in Appeal Nos. 2017/2008 and 2020/2008 for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92, respectively, by which the Tax Board dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners seeking refund of amount deposited as pre-requisite condition for enabling the petitioners to file appeal before the appellate authority, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (in short, "the DC (A)"). Interesting issue emerges in the instant case as to whether the amount having been deposited by the assessee as pre-condition of filing appeals before the appellate authority under section 84(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 can be refunded or not.
-
The brief facts stated in STR No. 234 of 2009 which relates to the assessment year 1991-92 are that the assessment order came to be passed on September 22, 2006 by which an amount of Rs. 28,43,027 was demanded as tax. The original assessment order was passed in this case on February 2, 2004. It was noticed by the assessing officer that the condition of clause 4(e)(i) of the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 has been violated. To assail the order of assessing officer before the DC (A), the assessee deposited an amount of Rs. 2,90,000 as a pre-condition to prefer appeals before the DC (A) on October 20, 2006.
-
Subsequent to deposit of the said amount which the assessee claims that it was not at all leviable/chargeable, nevertheless to prefer appeal under section 84(3), the said amount was deposited as aforesaid.
-
The State Government issued a Notification No. F. 12(12)FD-Tax Div-07-18 dated April 11, 2007 by which the existing condition (i) of sub-clause (e) was deleted with retrospective effect from May 23, 1987. It was claimed by the petitioner-assessee that consequent to the said notification, benefits were granted to the assessee and it was claimed that the amount paid by the assessee at Rs. 2,90,000 was not legally payable or irrecoverable from the assessee in the light of the said notification which came into effect with retrospective effect. The claim was made that such amount was not payable and thus refundable as no tax was payable when clause 4(e)(i) stood deleted. Prior to that the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated November 24, 2005 also passed an order withdrawing the incentive in the light of violation of clause 4(e)(i) of the said Act, 2003 which was challenged before the Rajasthan Tax Board. The Tax Board in the light of the said notification dated April 11, 2007 allowed the appeals of the assessee and quashed the order passed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial