9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant time, engaged inter alia in the trade of Intravenous Fluids. The petitioner was, therefore, liable to pay sales-tax on such trading. As per the petitioner, the company faced serious financial difficulties in the year 2002, and was thus unable to pay all its sales-tax dues. Ample proceedings, therefore, ensued. Under a notification dated 02.04.2012, the Government of Gujarat published an Amnesty Scheme to be operative between 01.04.2012 to 30.09.2012 concerning sales-tax dues up to the financial year 20052006. The Scheme provided that all sales-tax dues up to Rs. 20,000/would be waived with interest and penalties, for which, no application would have to be filed. In case of other defaulters up to tax dues of Rs. 1 crore excluding interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority under a communication dated 27.08.2012. In response to such application the Commercial Tax Officer, Junagadh, under his communication dated 21.04.2012 conveyed to the petitioner that the outstanding tax demand comes to Rs. 6,84,621/for the period between 19981999 to 20032004. 5. It is stated in the petition that at the time of actual payment such sum was revised to Rs. 6,56,713/, which was paid by the petitioner under different Challans. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted the benefit of the Scheme and all the past disputes and proceedings were buried as envisaged under the Amnesty Scheme. 6. On 28.09.2012, the petitioner wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of the Sales-tax that as per the correct calculation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner only on the ground that no refund was payable under the Scheme. We would deal with this objection at a later stage. For the time being, we record that the respondents have not presented any calculation either to confirm or to dispute the petitioner's claim that there has been an overpayment of tax as per the terms of the Scheme. In fact, it appears that no such exercise was undertaken to verify the petitioner's claim. We, therefore, proceed on that basis. 11. The question is if the petitioner is correct in establishing that there has been an overpayment under the Scheme, can the respondents still refuse to return the same placing reliance on paragraph 13 of the said Scheme. The answer has to be in negative. The Scheme require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under the Scheme, and that this has happened because of apparent error of arithmetic calculation on the part of the Government. If either of these two premises are proved to be wrong, the ultimate benefit would not flow to the petitioner. We make it clear that there would be no case of refund, if it is found that the entire amount of Rs. 6,56,713/was towards the principal tax due or that this question itself is a disputable and arguable issue. We must recall that the Scheme desired to put an end to all disputes. We cannot permit the petitioner to raise a fresh dispute and pursue legal proceedings, particularly when the petitioner applied for the benefit of the Scheme and deposited such sum as was told to him by the authority. 12. Subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
