9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from August, 2006 till the date of its actual refund on the principal amount of Rs. 2,82,96,335/-. 3. The facts stated briefly are that the reassessment orders came to be passed by the assessing authority in the case of the petitioner in February, 2006 and the demand of Rs. 4,65,98,739/- was raised for financial year 1997-98, against which the petitioner paid Rs. 50,53,592/- on 29.8.2006 and Rs. 2,49,57,955/- was adjusted out of the refund amount of financial year 2001-02. Thus, the petitioner had made a total payment of Rs. 3,00,11,547/- as against the demand raised by the assessing authority and had preferred an appeal against the assessment order. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of the assessment order. Reference was made to the decision of this court in M/s Syngenta Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 2018-VIL-228-GUJ, to submit that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the said decision. 6. Opposing the petition, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in the case of M/s Syngenta Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (supra), this court has placed reliance upon another decision of this court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Doshi Printing Press, [2015]82 VST 384 (Guj.); against which, the State of Gujarat has approached the Supreme Court and that the matter is pending adjudication, and hence, the decision of this court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate authority or even third appellate authority, as the case may be. The court held that the interpretation canvassed by the revenue of section 54(1) (aa) of the Act, if accepted, would run counter to the basic principles of the doctrine of merger which is a well accepted doctrine incorporated in the system of administration of justice. Relying upon the above decision, the court held that when the statutory appellate authority allows the appeal of an assessee, it only corrects the order of assessment. In other words, he gives legal shape to the contours of the matter, which in any case the Assessing Officer should have adopted. Therefore, in terms of section 54(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, in such a situation, it cannot be stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oshi Printing Press (supra), has been called in question before the Supreme Court and that the matter is pending adjudication. However, at present the controversy in issue stands squarely covered by the above referred decision of this court. Accordingly, following the decision in the case of M/s Syngenta Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (supra), this petition deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum from August, 2006 till the date of actual refund on the principal amount of Rs. 2,82,96,335/-, and not later than four weeks from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
