TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal in the matter of levy of entry tax on the petitioner-factory, Ammasandra. The Tribunal, by a detailed order allowed the petition and accepted the contention of the petitioner. According to the petition averments, the petitioner is therefore not liable to pay the entry tax for entry of goods in the petitioner-factory. In the light of the subsequent Tribunal's order, the petitioner made a refund claim on the Oil Corporation and the Oil Corporation in turn made a demand of refund on the Government. The Government rejected the same in terms of annexure B. 2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have entered appearance. Indian Oil Corporation-the first respondent has stated in the objection that they have collected the entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They refer to various notifications to contend that what has been collected is proper and legal. They further say that in the absence of any averment with regard to passing over all the tax, no refund claim is permissible in law. 5. Sri Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appears for the petitioner. He invites my attention to section 3-BB and section 18-A of the relevant tax laws to contend that the petitioner is entitled for relief at the hands of this Court. According to him, in the light of the Tribunal's order the collection of entry tax is unsustainable in law. He wants a refund by the Government. 6.. Sri K.P. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents says that at no point of time, the petitioner made any grievance, wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of default; and (iii) the whole of the amount remaining unpaid along with the interest calculated under clause (ii) of this sub-section shall be recoverable in the manner specified in section 8. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force, any amount paid or payable by any dealer under sub-section (1) shall, to the extent it is not due as tax be forfeited to the State Government and be recovered from him and such payment or recovery shall discharge him of the liability to refund the amount to the person from whom it was collected. (4) Where any amount is paid or recovered by or from any dealer under sub-section (1) or (3), a refund of such amount or any part thereof can be claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. In the absence of any forfeiture and in the absence of any order by the Government, the petitioner cannot base his prayers in terms of section 3-BB of the Act. It is also seen from the material on record that the petitioner unilaterally has chosen to adjust certain sum insofar as Indian Oil Corporation is concerned. The respondent in the light of refund application has chosen to approach the department and the department has chosen to reject the same on the ground of limitation. Those orders are not challenged as on date. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus on the peculiar facts of this case. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to unsettle an unchallenged assessment/rectification order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
