9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d view this litigative exercise by the petitioner would have been avoided had the respondents been more sensitive to their obligations under the provisions of the Act; and since they are not, we are called upon to rule on the petitioner's claims for payment of interest, i.e., a claim for Rs. 13,73,15,924 for belated refund of Rs. 15,40,07,843, pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99 (APGST) qua section 33F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the 1957 Act"). The petitioner is an instrumentality of the State-The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh. Assessment of the petitioner for 1998-99 was completed by the second respondent vide proceedings dated November 18, 2003 which resulted in refund of Rs. 15, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1999-2000 as per the final assessment order pertaining to that year; while reiterating that entry tax was stayed by the Tribunal and the appeals subsequently allowed. The petitioner also addressed reminders by its letters dated January 12, 2005, April 6, 2005, July 12, 2005 and April 25, 2006 requesting early refund of the amount. In response, the fourth respondent-the State of Andhra Pradesh by the letter dated July 6, 2007 informed the petitioner that refund of excess tax paid for 1998-99 could not be refunded as arrears of penal interest amounting to Rs. 88,89,02,228 for the years 1993-94 to 1997-98 and entry tax of approximately at Rs. 14,36,39,929 for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 were due from the petitioner. Why the fourth res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 18, 2003 arises after a period of six months from January 27, 2004, the petitioner submitted a claim for refund in form XXIII, a submission of fact not disputed by the respondents. Six months from January 27, 2004 is July 26, 2004 (not June 12, 2004 as claimed by the petitioner). The third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit which to the extent relevant and material for the purpose of this lis asserts that assuming the petitioner is entitled to interest, the liability need not be reckoned from the period of six months following from November 8, 2003 under the provisions of section 33F of the 1957 Act till the date of refund. According to the respondents the amount indicated in the refund order dated November 8, 2011 was already adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justment of Rs. 88,89,02,228 under the 2001 Entry Tax Act was not affected by the assessing authority nor informed to the petitioner. In any event eventually the respondents granted the refund to the petitioner on November 8, 2011, which they could not have granted if the refund had been absorbed in the adjustment of the liability under the 2001 Entry Tax Act. Section 33F admits no such assertion as is set forth by the respondents in the creative assertions in the counter. The fact that the respondents have failed to remit the interest component to the petitioner, an instrumentality of the State even after this writ petition is filed sensitizing the respondents of their statutory obligations under the provisions of section 33F signals a sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
