TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filing an appeal only up to 30 days. The appeal for the year 1990-91 was filed with a delay of 6 years and 3 months. Appeals for the earlier years will be much more. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner by his order dated March 15, 1999 declined to admit the appeal on the ground that it was not within his competence to admit the appeal after the expiry of total period of 60 days from the date of service of the assessment order. The ground for filing the appeal is that the entry under which the betel-nut powder was subjected to higher rate of tax vide entry 158(a) of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was unconstitutional on the analogy of the decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Commercial Agencies v. Commercia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tax at 6 per cent on the sales of betel-nut powder up to March 31, 1997 and at 10.5 per cent thereafter up to September 30, 1998, i.e., at the rate specified in the entry 158(a). Therefore, the inevitable effect of allowing or facilitating the petitioner to secure relief from the appellate authority would be to enrich him unjustly. The remedy under article 226 cannot be sought to get unjust benefit either directly or indirectly. On an exhaustive review, it has been authoritatively laid down by the majority of the Judges of the Supreme Court constituting Special Bench in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 111 STC 467 (SC) as follows: "A claim for refund, whether made under the provisions of the Act as contemplated in prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law. The power of the court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person." 6.. True, we are not directly concerned here with the claim for refund of the tax paid, but the endeavour of the petitioner to challenge the amendment to section 19 is only a part of his design to get such relief in the hands of the appellate authority. The petitioner has moved this Court under article 226 to have the way clear for condonation of delay by the appellate authority so as to eventually secure the benefit of refund despite the fact that he passed on the burden of tax to his buyers and therefore suffered no prejudice. In view of what the Supreme Court observed, art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
