Allahabad High Court
Umrao Lal Sheo Ratan Das vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 6 March, 1987
Equivalent citations: [1987]67STC362(ALL)
JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J.
1. This is a revision for the assessment year 1972-73 by the assessee against the Tribunal's order dated 8th July, 1985.
2. The facts are that according to the assessing officer, the assessee failed to pay the admitted tax in time and therefore, interest amounting to Rs. 6,957.70 was imposed in the assessment order. The assessee filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and before the Tribunal, but, failed at both the stages.
3. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that an amount aggregating to Rs. 8,349.43 had become refundable to the assessee on account of the excess payment made over the years 1965-66 to 1971-72 and that if the amount refundable is adjusted first, then there would be no interest liability. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that no doeumentary evidence was shown by the assessee to support the contention that a sum of Rs. 8,349.43 became refundable prior to the date of the assessment and that if no refund was made as per the refund vouchers, then the assessee would be entitled to get simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the department.
4. Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted before me that when the assessee raised a specific case before the Tribunal and before the lower authorities that the amount aggregating to Rs. 8,349.43 became refundable to the assessee under various orders, then it was the duty of the Tribunal to first decide whether the said amount became refundable or not and whether the assessee was entitled to seek adjustment thereof. Sri Gupta has shown a copy of the details that were furnished before the Sales Tax Officer, Sector-6, Kanpur. From a perusal of these details, it appears that he set out the assessment year, the period, the details of the order and the amount that became refundable to the assessee. The contention of Sri Gupta is that the amount refundable to the assessee was unascertained sum and therefore the assessee was entitled to claim adjustment thereof. The assessee having furnished complete details before the Sales Tax Officer, I find force in the submission of Sri Gupta that it was the duty of the Tribunal to decide whether the amount aggregating to Rs. 8,349.43 really became refundable to the assessee under various orders. The Tribunal simply mentioned that no documentary evidence that any amount had become refundable to the assessee was shown. The assessee may not have produced the copy of the assessment order under which the amount became refundable; but, the assessee, did file all the details which could have been verified by the Tribunal. The details set out by the assessee in the letter addressed to the Sales Tax Officer, Sector-6, Kanpur, require verification and Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the assessee, undertakes the responsibility to produce the various assessment orders to support the contention of refund. Therefore, the matter has to be sent back to the Tribunal.
5. The revision is allowed; the Tribunal's order dated 8th July, 1986 is set aside; the case is sent back to the Tribunal with a direction that it will record a clear finding having perused the various assessment orders, if any, produced by the assessee, whether the amount, details of which have been set out in the copy of the letter, addressed to the Sales Tax Officer, Sector-6, Kanpur, became refundable to the assessee. If it is so, then the Tribunal will record a finding why the adjustment thereof cannot be allowed to the assessee under Section 29 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. No order as to costs.