LexCOMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL AND SALES TAXES AND ORS. versus M/S. ORIENT PAPER MILLS AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL AND SALES TAXES AND ORS. A v. MIS. ORIENT PAPER MILLS AND ANR. FEBRUARY 17, 2004 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947; Section /4(c): Sales Tax Assessment-Raising of extra demands-Appeal rejected by Revenue-Appeal to Tribunal-Authority issuing notice of attachment against C assessee during pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal-Challenge to-- Vacating the notice of attachment, High Court directed assessee to deposit certain amount and that assessee could claim refund, if any, due to him with interest thereon-Assessee filing an application for stay before the authority concerned-Authority directed assessee to deposit certain amount-Challenge D to-High Court affirmed the order, however, reduced the amount to be deposited-Tribunal disposed of the pending appeal by remanding the matter to authority concerned-Authority directed to refund entire amount deposited by the assessee-Refund of amount along with interest by the authority-Rate of interest-Challenge to-High Court directed that in the absence of any specific direction of payment of interest by the High Court, the assessee was E entitled to claim interest as per provisions of section I 4(c) of the Act-Cross appeals-Held: Taking into consideration usual rate of interest being granted in cases involving refund of money, interest @ 12% on the sum deposited earlier would be appropriate-However, on the sum deposited later, there was no direction by the High Court as to refund or about the rate of interest- F Under the circumstances, interest @ 9% would be appropriate-Directions issued Respondent-assessee was a dealer registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. Sales Tax Officer made assessment for the assessment year 1993- 94 and rejected the books of accounts, raising an extra demand of tax. G Assessee unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the authority concerned and later filed an appeal before the Tribunal. During pendency of appeal before the Tribunal, a notice of attachment was issued by the authority. Assessee challenged it before the High Court. Disposing of the Writ Petition, High 451 H 452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) 2 S.C.R. A Court directed the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 Iakhs, and that the assessee could claim refund, if entitled, with interest thereon. Assessee filed an application for stay which was rejected by the authority directing the assessee to deposit a further sum of Rupees one crore. Assessee challenged it, High Court directed assessee to deposit further sum of Rupees 25 lakhs B only. The Tribunal disposed of the pending appeal by remanding the matter to the authiorjty• The authority re-considered the matter and directed refund of the entire amount deposited. Assessee claimed refund of amount deposited along with interest of Rs. 73,73,424/- against the C interest of Rs. 31,16,438 calculated by the authority. Assessee challenged it before the High Court. High Court directed that in the absence of specific directions for payment of interest, the assessee was entitled to claim interest as per provisions of law. Hence the cross appeals. It was contended for the Revenue that the provisions of Section 14- D C of the Act has no application to the facts of the case; and that since no amount was refundable before completion of the fresh assessment, the question of granting any interest thereon would not arise. On behalf of the respondent-assessee, it was submitted that since the Court has already granted interest and did not withdraw it, Revenue could E not refuse to pay interest; and that since the Court, as an interim measure, directed to deposit and also stipulated refund of the sum deposited in a particular manner and for payment of interest thereon, it in no way should affect a party. F Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Taking note of the usual rate of interest which is granted in cases involving refund of money, 12% interest in terms of the High Court's order on the sum of Rs. 50,000 paid pursuant to its earlier order dated 11.3.1996 would be appropriate in the absence of any specific rate G of interest stipulated by the Court, as a condition of the order itself. So far as the sum of Rs. 25,00,00 is concerned, there was no stipulation made regarding refund, much less, about the rate of interest. But Revenue seems to have erroneously proceeded on the basis as if it was to some extent covered by the e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.