TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has no application. It is not a case of unjust enrichment at all. A bare perusal of section 30C(1) would support the contention of the petitioner that the power to forfeit the tax provided therein is not attracted in a case of this nature. Further, having already passed reassessment order under section 14(4) on January 17, 2000, the second respondent could not have passed the impugned order ignoring the order of the ADC and the Commissioner which are binding on him. The impugned order, therefore, is ex facie unsustainable and it is accordingly set aside. The second respondent shall refund the amount as per form C dated September 5, 2003 within a period of four weeks from the date of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a special appeal which is pending before this court. Be that as it is, even after the suo motu revision by the first respondent, an amount of ₹ 18,45,309 became refundable. The second respondent accordingly passed a consequential order on September 5, 2003 after providing for tax adjustments for the assessment year 1995-96, notice of final assessment and refund order in form C for an amount of ₹ 17,03,322 informing that an amount of ₹ 17,03,322 is to be refunded in cash to the petitioner. Even though form C was prepared, it was not given effect. The petitioner then sent representation for actual refund of the amount as per form C dated September 5, 2003. In response thereto, the second respondent passed impugned p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was also issued. In such a background, whether the second respondent could have validly passed the impugned order forfeiting the refundable amount of ₹ 17,03,322. There is no dispute that while completing the assessment, the second respondent ordered refund on the ground that the TDS under section 5H of the Sales Tax Act was already deducted on ballast and cement and therefore, the tax already paid has to be refunded. This finding remained intact and this stood affirmed by the ADC as well as the Commissioner. Therefore, the principle in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 111 STC 467 (SC) has no application. It is not a case of unjust enrichment at all. A bare perusal of section 30C(1) would support the contention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
