9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equest for referring the questions as framed by the applicant in his reference application for answer by this court. The brief facts of the case are as under: (a) The respondent filed its return before the sales tax authorities for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994. The return filed for the aforesaid period was a nil return and there was no claim for refund in the return as filed. (b) The return came to be assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Adm) (M-85) Ratnagiri. Below the assessment order, the date of making of the assessment order was typed as March 31, 1997. On the right hand column, below the order, was the signature of the aforesaid Assistant Commissioner with no date thereunder. On the left ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s passed within the period of limitation. It directed the assessing officer to grant refund to the appellant expeditiously with interest under section 43A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. It also directed the assessing officer to pay the costs of Rs. 500 to the respondent. (d) That thereafter, the applicant preferred an application before the Tribunal for referring the two questions of law as stated in the application. This application came to be rejected by the Tribunal by its judgment and order dated October 15, 2005. In these circumstances, the present application came to be filed in this court by the applicant. The present application came to be admitted by this court on June 30, 2006 on the following substantial questions of law: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d his order before that date. It is further concluded that the date April 10, 1997 was probably made to defeat the refund claim. In our view, only a disputed question of fact and no question of law arises in this case. The second date April 10, 1997 as shown below the judgment is not below the signature of the assessing officer. There is no date below the signature of the assessing officer. On facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and therefore, in our view, the first substantial question of law as framed does not arise. Before parting with the matter, we would like to observe that an attempt appears to have been made by the assessing officer to deprive the assessee of the benefit of a refund. He must have had knowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
