TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the petitioner’s request for remission, was turned down, however, this would not conclude the issue since the petitioner did not accept such verdict of the authority. The petitioner merely applied afresh and made cash deposit of the petitioner’s liability under the remission scheme which application was accepted upon the remaining liability being satisfied by the petitioner. The petitioner’s application for remission and the petitioner’s claim for refund of ₹ 50 lakhs deposited pursuant to the Courts directions, thus were segregated. The stand of the authorities that such amount of ₹ 50 lakhs was deposited by way of tax prior to the scheme and, therefore, cannot be refunded, cannot be accepted. In fact, we have some dou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd sale of residential flats. The issue of paying sales tax/vat on the materials consumed in execution of construction works contracts was not free from doubt, and eventually came to be settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Larsen Turbo Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka Anr. , 2014(1) SCC 708 4. This judgment resulted into substantial tax liabilities on various construction contractors in the State that too for past period. The State Government, therefore, framed a remission scheme under the circular dated 18.11.2014 giving soft terms for payment of past taxes to these contractors and developers on certain conditions. We would advert to the scheme at a later stage. 5. On the premise that though required to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear and shall be renewed from time to time till the assessments are over. 3.1 The respondents are expected to complete the assessment expeditiously. 3.2 It is clarified that the bank accounts of the petitioner shall be released as soon as the undertaking, as provided in para (i) of the conditions is filed before this Court, with a copy to respondent No. 3. 6. It is undisputed that the petitioner deposited such amount of ₹ 50 lakhs with the Government, as directed in the said order and fulfilled other conditions, upon which, the bank accounts were freed from attachment. 7. In terms of the said remission scheme dated 10.11.2014, the petitioner applied to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax on 11.12.2014, reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s granted the benefit of remission scheme. 11. The petitioner, however, continued to pray for refund of the said sum of ₹ 50 lakhs deposited pursuant to the order of the High Court. On 10.7.2015, the petitioner requested the authorities to grant such refund and followed up the same with a reminder. The respondents, however, by an order dated 8.2.2016, rejected such request reiterating that the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs was deposited before the declaration of the scheme and, therefore, cannot be refunded. 12. The said scheme dated 18.11.2014 was in the nature of amnesty offered to all intending contractors and developers in view of substantial tax, interest and penalty liabilities arising for past period by virtue of the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would perhaps be justified in invoking para-13 of the scheme to deny refund of such sum. 14. On the other hand, if the amount was a mere deposit, to be adjusted towards the ultimate tax liability of the petitioner, the stand of the State would not be valid. 15. In the order dated 24.3.2014, in case of the petitioner s earlier petition in Special Civil Application No.4060 of 2014 filed by the petitioner, what was in challenge, was an order of provisional attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner. At that stage, there was no final order of assessment framed by the authorities. While lifting such attachment, the Court, in the order dated 24.3.2014, provided for certain safeguards. Noticing that the approximate tax liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. 16. The petitioner s application for remission and the petitioner s claim for refund of ₹ 50 lakhs deposited pursuant to the Courts directions, thus were segregated. The stand of the authorities that such amount of ₹ 50 lakhs was deposited by way of tax prior to the scheme and, therefore, cannot be refunded, cannot be accepted. 17. In fact, we have some doubt about the correct interpretation of para-13 of the scheme which refers to no refund of a tax, interest or penalty already paid . One way of looking at this provision could be that the scheme prohibits refund of tax already paid. Does it also prohibit adjustment of tax for the past period paid, but which is now covered by the amnesty scheme, is a question we need n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
