1999 (3) TMI 676 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of Sales Tax under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96.
2. Refund of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the same assessment years.

Issue 1: Refund of Sales Tax under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

The petitioner sought a writ for the refund of Sales Tax collected under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 on the sale of "poultry feed" manufactured with ingredients purchased from outside the State. The State had issued an exemption granting G.O. Ms. No. 1055, which the petitioner did not benefit from due to using ingredients from outside the State. Another manufacturer in a similar situation filed a writ petition and succeeded, prompting the present petitioner to claim a refund based on the judgment in that case. The court held that the petitioner could not seek a refund through a writ petition based on another manufacturer's success. The court emphasized the finality of assessments and the need to challenge assessments appropriately, rather than relying on judgments in other cases for refunds.

Issue 2: Refund of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the same assessment years.

The petitioner also sought a refund of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the same assessment years. The court reiterated that a petitioner cannot claim a refund based on another person's success in a writ petition. The court emphasized that each person must fight their own legal battles and cannot rely on judgments in other cases for refunds. The court dismissed the writ petitions as the assessments had become final in 1996 and 1997, emphasizing that the burden not being passed on to consumers did not strengthen the petitioner's case. The legal position stated in the Mafatlal Industries case was highlighted, emphasizing the sanctity of finality in legal proceedings and the need for each person to succeed or fail in their own proceedings.

In conclusion, the court dismissed both writ petitions, stating that the petitioners could not claim a refund based on the success of another person's case and emphasizing the importance of challenging assessments appropriately rather than seeking refunds through writ petitions based on other judgments.