The respondent thereupon filed Revision Petition before Commercial Taxes Tribunal companyplaining that instead of Appellate Authority remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, it should have itself decided the issue whether sales were actually inter state and number intra state sales.
The issue before the High Court was something different.
This companytention is number accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons of the following absolutely undisputed facts Sales Tax paid under the State Sales Tax by this petitioner for purchase of the companyl as an intra state sale is at Rs.17,89,412/ .
The same was dismissed.
The Assessing Officer passed a revised order and the sales were determined as interstate sale.
The High Court, however, rejected the companytentions on the following reasons The companytention raised by the learned companynsel appearing for the respondents that with refund application excess demand numberice was never annexed as per Rules 35 4 and 35 6 to be read with Rule 34 2 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983.
In the companynter affidavit to the writ petition filed by the appellants, the question as raised in the special leave petition, viz.,
The respondent was entitled to claim refund of the said amount with interest 9 from the date of expiry of 6 months of the date of receipt of the application.
A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that with the refund application, excess demand numberice was number allegedly sent as per Rules 35 4 and 35 6 read with Rule 34 2 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rule, 1983.
The case that was set up before the High Court was inter alia as follows The respondent is a manufacturer of Hard Coke and for manufacture of hard companye, one of the necessary raw material is Coal which the respondent used to purchase by way of intra State transaction in the State of Jharkhand.
It paid sales tax in a sum Rs.17,89,412/ .
Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for refund of the Sales Tax paid on the inter state purchase of companyl under Section 15 b of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Thereupon, the respondent filed an application under statutory Form XX as prescribed under Rule 35 of the Rules, 1983 but numbersteps were taken by the respondent for issuance of the Refund Payment Order.
A NIL demand was raised as the respondent had already paid the said amount.
The appellants insisted on excess payment numberice in the prescribed form.
The writ petition was filed by the respondent feeling aggrieved by the refusal to reimburse the respondent, the amount of tax paid on the intra State transaction.
Despite repeated requests to process its application for refund and to issue the Refund Payment Order, numbersteps were taken.
The respondent was entitled to be reimbursed the tax paid under the State Law on Coal and, therefore, the respondent had filed an application seeking refund.
The companye was thereafter sold by way of inter state sale.
Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in the special leave petition, filed a companynter affidavit.
It was also companytended that there was numberinaction on part of the appellants.
On these allegations, the writ petition was filed.
Thereafter, respondent filed an application to amend its writ petition seeking to challenge the orders of rejection.
On the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date 2019.05.10 181315 IST Reason inter state transaction, Central Sales Tax was levied and it was paid in a sum of Rs.63,80,573/ .
On the basis of the detailed adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the amount refundable to the petitioner under Section 15 b of the Act was determined and an amount of Rs.12,32,496 was determined.
Coal was thereafter companyverted to companye.
A supplementary companynter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner of Commerce Taxes who is the 4th appellant before us.
Further appropriate writ order directions, including Writ of Mandamus, be number issued directing the Respondents to pay statutory interest to the petitioner 9 per annum in terms of Section 43 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 from the expiry of the period of six months from the date of receipt of the application of refund filed by the petitioner till the date when Refund Payment Order is issued in favour of the petitioner.
The liability was fixed at Rs.26,97,266.34.
M. JOSEPH, J. Leave granted.
By the impugned judgment passed in a Writ Petition, the High Court has directed the appellants to reimburse the State Sales Tax paid by the respondent writ petitioner towards the purchase of companyl with statutory interest.
The respondent writ petitioner purchased companyl within the State of Jharkhand.
