Karnataka High Court
Vikrant Transport Co. vs Commercial Tax Officer (Int-I) on 28 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2006]146STC76(KAR)
Author: R. Gururajan
Bench: R. Gururajan
ORDER R. Gururajan, J.
1. Petitioner is before me seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Quash the endorsement No. CTO(INT)I/2000-01 dated February 27, 2003 issued by the respondent (annexure E);
(b) Direct the respondent to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,03,896 as directed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals and Audit), Mangalore, vide order dated December 5, 2002 in KST.AP.507/1999-2000 (annexure B) along with interest at 12 per cent per annum; and
(c) Grant such other relief as deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of equity and justice.
2. Petitioner-dealer, suffered an order Under Section 28-A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 dated "Nil". Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals and Audit), Mangalore. The appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and quashed the penalty levied on the petitioner. The appellate authority also directed the respondent to refund the penalty amount collected from the appellant. Thereafter, petitioner made a representation in the light of the appellate order. An endorsement has been issued by the respondent in terms of the order at annexure E. Annexure E is challenged in this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri. G.K.V. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner has a right of refund in the light of the appellate order. Petitioner has also made over a representation after the order of the Commissioner. The Commercial Tax Officer has now chosen to issue an endorsement stating therein that the department is considering the suo motu proceedings in the light of the appellate order and that therefore they may not be able to refund the amount. The reasoning at annexure E is unsustainable in law. Once an order has been passed by the appellate authority ordering refund, the same cannot be denied by the respondent particularly in the absence of "no revision" as on today. Under the circumstances, a case is made out by the petitioner.
5. Petition stands allowed. The respondent is directed to refund the amount with interest as permissible in law within four weeks from today. No costs.
Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned High Court Government Pleader is given four weeks' time to file his memo of appearance.