Disposed

M/s. Delta Mechcons (India) Limited, repby its Managing v. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes at

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2024WP/19049/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A taxpayer sought interest on delayed sales-tax refunds under the APGST Act for assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02 after rejection of its claim by endorsement. The court held that for years 2000-01 and 2001-02 the right to refund arose only from the revisional orders and refunds were timely; it directed payment of 12% interest for 3 months 24 days each for 1997-98 and 1999-2000.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 12% p.a. on refunded amounts for 3 months 24 days each for AYs 1997-98 and 1999-2000; no order as to costs.

M/s. Delta Mechcons (India) Limited, repby its… — GST and Indirect Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RA' AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 19049 OF 2007

¶6

Between:

¶7

Delta Global Allied Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Dipak J. Barai, having its registered office at No.9, Prabhadevi Ankur Co-op. HSG. Society 895a, Kaka Saheb Gadgil Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, Mumabi City, Maharashtra - 400025. (Cause title was amended as per Court Order dated.18.09.2024^videI.A. No.1 of 2024 in W.P. No.19049 of 2007)

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes at, Kakinada (A.P)

¶10

The Commercial Tax Officer, Aryapuram Circle, Rajahmundry (A.P).

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ order or Direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the records relating to and in connection with Endowments of Respondent No.2 in his^{GlNo.4512/2006-} 07, dated 14-08-2007, declaring the same as bad illegal, unsustainable violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to pay interest for the delayed refund in terms of Section 33-E of APGST Act 1957.

¶13

l-A. NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 24481 OF 2007)

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased deposit the entire refund of interest amounts concerning ac. No. /Year KDA/08/03/2511/12-06-96, KDA/08/03/1550/12-06-96, pending disposal of the above WP.

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 11115 OF 2008)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the date of hearing of the above writ petition WP.no.19049of 2007.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUPPIRI SARAN

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

APHC010502422007

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶22

[3488]

¶23

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19049/2007

¶27

Between:

¶28

M/s. Delta Mechcons (India) Limited, Repby Its Managing ...PETITIONER AND

¶29

The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes At and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶30

1.MUPPIRI SARAN

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.DANTU SRINIVAS( SPL SC FOR CT)

¶32

2.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (AP) 3.SURIBABU S(SPL SC FOR CT AP)

¶33

The Court made the following Order: (perHon'ble Sri^{JusticeR.RaghunandanRaoJ} The petitioner which had undertaken E.P.C contracts,^intheState

¶34

of Andhra Pradesh for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 & 2001-2002, had been subjected to assessments^{onthesalestax} payable under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax^Act,1957 [for short “the APGST Act, 1957”]. The assessment orders for these^{yearshadresulted} in the department having to refund certain amounts of tax paid by the petitioner.

¶35

The petitioner had filed claim petitions dated 06.08.2002^forthe assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02. Subsequently,^{thedepartmenthad} refunded the excess tax collected from the petitioner.^The details of the

¶36

¶37

assessment orders, date of application and date of refund are set out herein

¶38

below (these are dates given by the respondents).

¶39

SI. No.	Assessment Year Date of Original Assessment	Date of rectification under Rule 50/ revision under Section 20(2)	Date of filing of claim petition in Form XXIII	Due date for refund	Date of refund granted	Delay
1.	1997-98 21.09.1999	10,07.2001	06.08.2002	05.02.2003	29.05.2003	3 Months
.2,	1999-00 05.07.2001		06.08.2002	05.02.2003	29.05.2003	& 24 days 3 Months
3.	2000-01 05.07.2001	18.06.2003	06.08.2002	17.12.2003	04.07.2003	& 24 days
4.	2001-02 30.06.2003	20.12.2003		20.05.2004	29.03.2004
	3. The petition	er, after	receiving	the refu	nds had	made
rep	resentations to the re	spondents	for paymen	t of interes	t on the d	elayed
refu	nds. These requests	were rej	ected by	the 2 nd re	spondent	by an
end	orsement dated 14.0	8.2007. Agg	rieved by	the said	endorsemen	t, the
peti	tioner has approached	this Court	by way of t	he present	Writ Petitio	n. The
res	pondentshadalsofiled	theircounte	r.

¶40

The case of the petitioner is that the dates of the original assessment, set out in the table above, make it amply clear that refunds had arisen in the said assessment orders and consequently, the petitioner was entitled to refund of the excess taxes. The petitioner’s further contention is that the petitioner had filed the claim petitions, in the prescribed forms on 06.08.2002, as required under Section 33(A) of the APGST Act, 1957. It is contended that Section 33(E) of the APGST Act, 1957 stipulates that interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount directed to be refunded would have to be paid if the refund occurs beyond six months from the date of claim petition under Section 33(A) of the APGST Act, 1957. It is submitted that on

¶41

¶42

account of the delay in payment for the assessment^{years1997-98&1999-} 2000, the 2 nd respondent had admitted the delay of 3 months 24 days, on which interest is payable.

¶43

As far as the years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 are concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the order of original assessment dated 05.07.2001 for the year 2000-2001, and the order of^{originalassessment,,} dated 30.06.2003, for the year 2001-2002, would be^{thestartingpointfrom} which the refund become due. Subsequently, the claim^{hadbeenfiledinthe} prescribed form on 06.08.2002 in relation to year 2000-01^{and29.07.2003for} the year 2001-02. The petitioner disputes the claim^{ofthe2'^'^respondentthat} no claim was made for the year 2001-02. The petitioner^{wouldfinallycontend} that the claim of the 2 nd respondent that there was no delay in refunding the excess tax for the years 2000-01 & 2001-02 is incorrect^{astheperiodofsix} months had lapsed much prior to the dates of refund.

¶44

The case of the 2 nd respondent is that while the assessment' orders had been passed on 05.07.2001, in case of the^{assessmentyear2000-} 01, and 30.06.2003 in the case of assessment year 2001-02,^thesamehad been subjected to revision by the Territorial Deputy^{Commissionerresultingin} reduction of the amount of the tax which had to be^refunded. It is submitted that these rectification orders dated 18.06.2003 &^{20.12.2003wouldhaveto} be taken into account for refund of tax. It is further^{contendedthatSection} 33(F) of the APGST Act, 1957 would be applicable and^{thetaxwouldhaveto} be paid out within six months from the said date. It^{isfurthersubmittedthatthe}

¶45

¶46

refund for both these years had been carried out before the expiry of such dates and consequently, there is no delay in payment.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of^{AndhraPradeshinthecase} of Pulp NPack Private Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer & Ors./ would contend that, the application, at least for the year 2000-01, had been filed even prior to the date of the revisional order and as such the six month period should be calculated from the date of the claim petition^{andnotthedateofthe} revisional order.

¶48

It is further contended that Section 33(C) of the APGST Act, 1957 which empowers the authority to withhold tax had not^{beenexercisedand} consequently, the period of six months should be calculated^{from06.08.2002} instead of the revisional order dated 18.06.2003. He contends that the same would be applicable even for the year 2001-02.

¶49

A perusal of this Judgment would show that the Division^Bench was concerned with the parameters applicable for exercising power under Section 33(C) of the APGST Act, 1957. This Judgment is not an authority for the proposition that non exercise of power under Section 33(C), would result in levy of interest even when a revision or appeal is pending. The Judgment is silent on this aspect.

¶50

The fact of the matter is that the assessment orders for the years 2000-01 & 2001-02 had resulted in refund of tax being payable to the

¶51

■ ^ (2009) 48 APSTJ 205; (2009) 23 VST 573 (AP)

¶52

¶53

petitioner. Both these orders were subjected to revision by the Territorial Deputy Commissioner and the same resulted in reduction of the refund amount. In such circumstances, the right of the petitioner^{toclaimrefundstood} postponed to the date on which the revisional order had been passed. 11. Section 33(B) of the APGST Act, 1957 states that where ever any refund becomes payable as a result of any order passed in appeal or other proceedings under this Act, the same shall be refunded even without any claim being made in that behalf by the assessee or licensee. Section 33(F) stipulates that where a refund is due under Section 33(B), the said refund would be done within a period of six months from the date of such order falling which interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be payable.

¶54

In the present case, the refund for the years 2000-01^&2001-02 was made within the aforesaid six month period after passing of the revisional orders.

¶55

in the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing payment of interest for 3 months 24 days, for the assessment year 1997-98, and 3 months 24 days; for the assessment year 1999^to2000atthe rate of 12% per annum on the amount of refund paid out by the Commercial, Tax Department. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

SD/- G HELA NAIDU assistant.regisjrar SEC t^o^fficer

¶59

To,

¶60