Dismissed

M/S.Lucky Wines (P) Ltd., Hyderabad v. the C.T.O., Hyderabad

Telangana HC16 Dec 2021WP/5317/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to pay a balance interest of Rs.5,59,253/- on a delayed tax refund. The Court held that the respondent considered the claim and paid the correct amount calculated under Section 33F(2) of the APGST Act, finding no error or merit in the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for payment of balance interest of Rs.5,59,253/- dismissed. Application for interim direction dismissed.

M/S.Lucky Wines (P) Ltd., Hyderabad Vs the C.T.O… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMTJUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5317 OF 2006

¶6

Between:

¶7

l/is. Lucky Wines (P) Lid., rep. by its lr,4anaging Director, I/r.Pramod K.Harjani, S/o late Kanyalal K.Harjani, Hyderabad.

¶8

...pETtfloNER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Commercial Tax Officer, Ashoknagar Circle, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings d1.20-12-2005 in Ref .A/refunds/2/2000-01 and reply dt. 16-01-2006 in Ref.A/Refundsl2l2000-O1 as illegal arbitrary, contrary to the Section 33 F of the APGST Act, 1957 and also contrary to the^judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in 33 AP STJ Page No.241 and consequently direct the respondent to pay the balance interest of Rs.5,59,253/- as per the calculation memo and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case. WPMP. NO: 6772 OF 2006

¶13

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^grant interim direction to pay balance of interest of Rs.5,59,253/-^pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KUNUKU DURGA PRASAD

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. RAJI REDDY,

¶16

SPECIAL S.C. FOR COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHIryAN AND

¶19

HONOURABLE SMTJUSTICE^P. MADHAVI^DEYI W.P.No.5317 of 2006

¶20

Order: @er lron'bte si Just;ce^{uiiat Dburan)}

¶21

Heard Mr. I(Durga Prasad, iearned collnsel for^{the petitioner,} and Mr. K.Raji lteddy, learned Special Standing Counsel^for Commercial Ta-r D epartmcnt.

¶22

2 By filing this Writ Pendon under Arriclc 226 of the^{(-onstrtution} of India, petitior-rer seeks a dircction to the respondcnt lor payment of balance arnount of interest of 1ts.5,59,25.3.00 on acccrttt.tt of dclat cd refund o[ excess amolrflt ol ta-x paid by the pcntioner.

¶23

Petitioner is a rvholesale dealer in liquor and beer. Iior four assessment years i.e., 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, rhe assessing authoriry ler-ied General Sales Tax on the packing material i.e.,both bottles and cartofls at the applicable rate.

¶24

Petitioner prelerred four separate appeals befcrre the Appellatc Depur,v Commissioner against the orders of assessment for the four assessment years. Ilorvever, the appellate authorin' dismissed all thc appeals.

¶25

'fhereafter, petitioner preferred Second;\ppeals beforc thc Sales Ta-x Appellate 1'ribuna1, Ilyderabad, which wcfe regrstered AS T.A.Nos.37, 38, 39 and 40 of 1994. By order dated 19.02.1999, the

¶26

appcals were parthr allorvcd and partly dismissed. ln so far^ler'-1, of ta-r on the r.alue o[ the botdes was concerfled, the appeals were dismissed. I Iorvever, in SO far ler,-r., of ta-r on the value of the cartons vas conccrned, the appeals v.ere allowed.^'Ihe matter vas remitted back to the assessing authoriry to ascertain the vaiue of the cartons for each assessmcnt year and thereafter, to levy the sales tax.

¶27

|olloving thc aforesaid appellate ordcrs, thc assessing authoriw 1,e., respondent passed consequential ordcrs determining the tax lcr-iablc upon tllc pctitioncr lor tl-rc four :r-ssessmcnt vears at Iis.95,842.00, ]is.1,09,980.00, Its.5,(r7,403.00 and lts.6,46,509.00 respectivclv. I t-r the process, it v,'as fou r-rd that c\ccss amounts of sales taxes were collected by the respondent from the petitioner.

¶28

Contending that petitioner r.vas entidcd to refund of excess tax collected along u,'ith interest under Section 33F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 @riefly^'the Act' hereinafter), petitioner lrst represented before tl-re respondent. When there w-as no response, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22772 of 2005, which rvas disposed o[ bv order dated 22.12.2005. It may be mentioncd that on the said date, Iearned G or.crnment Ple ader for Commcrcial J'zrx informcd the Court that interest has bcen ordered to bc paid to tlrc pctitioner by order dated 20.12.2005. Be it stated, that in the meanr.vhile, the excess amount of tax collected, was re funded to the petitioner. Ily subsequent order, dated 16.01.2006,, the quantum

¶29

::3::

¶30

of interest was calculated at^{lis.3,68,871.00. 'I'he samel-ras also becn} paid to the petitioner. Hor.ver.er, the order^{dated16.01.2006,records} that petitioner's ciaim for payment of further interest of Rs.5,59,253.00 being the interest calicuiated from the date o[^expiry of six months of tl-re appellate order of the Tribunal dated^{79.02.7999,to} the exprry of six months of the lligh Court order dated 06.06.2t)02, $,as flot entertainable. llc it stated, that agatnst tl-rc order of the Tribunal dated 19.02.1999, State had filed referencc pctitions before this Court, which rvere, hou,ever, dismissed on 06.06.2002.

¶31

It is in such circumstances, that the present Writ Petitron has been filed by the petrtroner seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,59,253.00 as the ba.lance amount of interest for delayed payment of tax refund.

¶32

Respondent has filed counter-affidavit denying the contention and ciaim of the petitioner. Paragraph 5 of the counter-affldar.it reads as undcr:

¶33

"Agpieved by the Orders passed by' the l{onourable S'I'A'I', the State preferred'I'ax Revision Case beforc tliis Honourable Court n^'lRCs 1.66/99 and Batch. Durrng the pendenq of the tevision before this Ilonourablc Court, the amoullts due to the petitioner by vltue of the Honourable Tnbunal's order have been rvithheld under Sectrol 33C of the A.P.G.S.'I'. Act by my predecessor b,v arr Order dated 20.1,1.2001. Ultirnately, the ter.isions {iled by the State have been dismissecl by this Honourable Court or 05.6.2002. ht r.-rew of the dismissal of the TRCs filed by the State, the

¶34

interest due to rhe pctrhoner was ca.lculated by cxcluding six tnr:nd.rs penod rurder Section 33F(2) of dre r.P.G.S.T. Act. After excludrng the period ftom 05.6.2002 to 01.12.2002, the Petironer was paid interest fuom 01.12.2002 to 01.02.2005 (the date on n'hich refir.nds were ultrmately granted). Thus, the contention of the Petitioner that the interest was not calculated properly by me is not coffect. Infact, the Petitionet is not entitled for any intetest during the pendency of the Proceedings before this Honourzble Court in TRCs '166/99 and Batch. The further contention of the Petitioner that the Orders passed by me are contrary to the decision of the Honoutable Court reported h 33 APSTJ 231 is also not correct. The decision of this Honomble Court referred to above tclated to refund with interest under Sectlon 33B read with sub-sectron (1) of Sectron 33F of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, more so, therc was no with-holding of refuird under Section 33C of the said Act. Whereas, rr the instarrt Petitroner's casc, the pror-isions of Section 33B read with Section 33C for Refund atd, the provision undet sub-section (2) of Section 33F- of the A.P.G.S.T. Act for interest come inro plav. Based on these prorisiots, the Petthoner rvho was elltitled for rnterest crf Rs.3,68,871 calculated at 12o/o fc:lr the penod ftom 04.12.2002 tn 01.02.2005 under sub-sectron (2) of Section 33F of the A.P.G.S.T. Act is paid already r,rde Refund Voucher No.41 of Book No.190 vide Ptoceedings in Ref. A,/Refurds/ 2 / 2000-01,, dated 20.12.2005. Accordrngly, the Peritroner is not entitled for anv fiuther interest."

¶35

10.^'I'hus, it is contended that petitioner was only entitled to interest of Rs.3,68,871.00, caliculated @12oio for thc period from 04.12.2000 to 01.02.2005 under sub-section (2) <;f Scction 33F of the Act.

¶36

11 -After hearing lcarncd counsel flor the parties and cor-rsidering the materials on record as rvell as going througl-r the provisions o[ Scction 33F ol tl-rc Act, we are not inclincd to acccde to the prayer made by

¶37

the petitioner,^{that too at this distant point of time' Claimof the} petitioner was^{duly consideredby the respondentand thereafter'} interest was^{paid for the delay in payiog the tax refund'We do oot} find any error^{or infumiry in the viewtaken by the respondent'No} case for interference^{is made out. That being the position, we do Irot} find any merit^{in the Writ Iretition'}

¶38