9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, issued under section 4-B of the Act for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 as valid. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the point of the validity of the aforesaid provisions of the Rules but confined his argument to the later part of the relief sought for in the writ petition. The only point which we are called upon to adjudicate in the present writ petition is whether the application for renewal made by the petitioner for recognition certificate for the aforesaid relevant years in question was rightly rejected by the competent authority by means of the impugned order dated 7th October, 1985, which is annexure 15 to the writ petition. The reason for the rejection of the application dated 17th March, 1981, was that the said application was not accompanied by the requisite deposit of fees for the grant of exemption as required under rule 25-A(3) of the Rules, which is Rs. 150. The case of the petitioner is that he was entitled to a refund of Rs. 15,477.18 for the assessment year 1976-77 on the basis of order passed under section 22 on 30th March, 1983, and thus he has requested the respondent-authority to adjust Rs. 150 out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25-A of the Rules, it was incumbent on the respondentauthority before rejecting the aforesaid application to have given an opportunity to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that till the order for refund was passed on 30th March, 1983, the application of the petitioner remained pending. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the respondentauthority for adjusting Rs. 150 out of the refund, which he was entitled, towards the said fees. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the letter dated 31st July, 1985, as annexure 10 to the writ petition wherein intimation was given to the petitioner referring to the refund voucher for Rs. 8,642.92 for the year 1977-78 and Rs. 15,477.18 for the year 1976-77. Admittedly, till this date his aforesaid application was not rejected. After the receipt of the aforesaid letter the petitioner sent letter to the respondent-authority on 3rd October, 1985, for the adjustment of Rs. 150 out of the aforesaid amounts refundable to the petitioner. It seems that the respondentauthority, in spite of that, rejected the application on the ground that on the date on which the petitioner made an application for the grant of exemption under section 4-B of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from tax for the entire assessment year, must make exemption application within 30 days of the commencement of the assessment year, and also deposit, within that period, one-fourth of the exemption fee, calculated on the turnover of the previous year. Where the dealer makes good the deficiency even after the prescribed time, his exemption application may be treated as in order, but that can be only with reference to the date, on which the deficiency is made good. Application will, then be considered as having been made on that date, and on the basis of rule 20-B(f), the dealer will be entitled to a provisional exemption certificate with effect from such date, and not for the entire assessment year." (The underlining* is by us) We have perused the aforesaid Full Bench decision and we find that the Full Bench was concerned with rule 20-B(f), which has since been deleted by means of amendment in 1981. It is significant under subclause (a) of rule 20-B the application for exemption in form V is to be accompanied by a treasury challan showing deposit of one-fourth of the exemption fee calculated on the turnover of the previous year. There is no corresponding provision under rule 25-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nition certificate for the grant of exemption is to be treated from the date of making of such an application. Learned Standing Counsel further submits, in view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, that actually the amount which was refundable to the petitioner was really not refundable but was issued by mistake since the petitioner was liable to pay interest for the relevant year in question which was to the tune of Rs. 72,813.05 and Rs. 1,10,980. Hence, there could be no question of adjustment of the amount for which refund voucher was issued. By perusal of counter-affidavit it is clear that the respondent-authority itself issued notice to the petitioner about the liability of the petitioner of paying interest on 30th March, 1984, for both the years, viz., 1976-77 and 1977-78 and the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amounts within time mentioned by the respondent-authority. We find that on the basis of this notice the respondent cannot take advantage for the purpose of not adjusting the said amounts, if it was found due to the petitioner in view of order of refund passed earlier. Admittedly, the application for the grant of exemption was made as far back as 17th Mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
