TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly, the turnover tax liability existed in law up to 23.02.2005. The case of the assessee falls in the last category as discussed above, where the liability related to the period prior to 03.02.2005 but it stood realized and thus recovered. The assessee could not have claimed for refund either under the existing law or the administrative decision of the State contained in the communication dated 26.07.2005. There is no room to examine the issue any further, in the present revision application - revision dismissed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 315 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2019 - Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. For the Revisionist : Ashish Agrawal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction tax, if subsequently withdrawn, can be so retained by the authority inasmuch as the same is against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the doctrine of undue enrichment. Moreover when it is the specific case that the assessee has deposited the same from his own pocket and has not charged from his customers? 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is seen, that during the assessment year in question, the assessee was engaged in trading in edible oils. There is no dispute with respect to estimation of regular tax liability. However, by a notice dated 17.02.2005, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to deposit the turnover tax under Section 3-G of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offending ordinance that created the liability of turnover tax was enforced till 23.02.2005, whereas the disputed liability is for the period 24.01.2005 to 31.01.2005. Thus, the prospective withdrawal of the ordinance will have no effect on the tax liability that got crystallized on 31.01.2005. 9. The fact that the assessee deposited that amount two days after withdrawal of the ordinance, would also be of no relevance as what is relevant to be seen is the date on which the liability arose and whether the withdrawal of the ordinance had any impact on the liability that stood crystallized. Examined in that perspective, the withdrawal of the offending ordinance was only prospective. There is no case of the assessee it was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
