News Update

PM to hold roadshow in Puri on MondayViolations of economic sanctions: Criminal penalties come into forceBengaluru Customs nabs 4 pax with gold powder worth Rs 1.96 CroreKejriwal’s assistant put in police custody for 5 days in Swati Maliwal caseAllahabad HC upholds decision to dismiss judicial officer demanding dowryNawaz Sharif alleges former Chief Justice plotted to oust him as PM in 2017Heavy downpours claim 50 lives in Central AfghanistanSoaring funeral costs compelling people to let go bodies unclaimed in Canada9 pilgrims burnt to death as bus catches fire near Nuh in HaryanaSpain denies dock permission to Indian ship carrying arms to Israel12 Unicorns, over 125 startups commit to onboarding ONDCBEML secures Rs 250 crore order from Northern Coal FieldsBharat Parv celebration takes centerstage at Cannes Film FestivalSteel industry should work towards reducing emissions: Steel SecretaryI-T - Additions framed on account of unexplained cash credit & unexplained money, are not tenable where cash deposits & withdrawals were of personal funds & were done through banking channels: ITATUS says not too many vibrant democracies in the world than IndiaI-T - Benefit of section 11(2) can not be denied merely on reasoning that form 10 is filed belatedly: ITATIndia says Chabahar Port to benefit Central Asia and AfghanistanRussia seizes Italy’s UniCredit assets worth USD 463 mnCus - Order re-determining transaction value based on CRCL test report is not correct & hence unsustainable: CESTATCus - If price is not sole consideration for sale, then transaction value can be rejected under Rule 8 of Export Valuation Rules & then must be redetermined sequentially through Rules 4 to 6: CESTATSC upholds ICAI rules capping number of audits per year
 
Haryana Sales Tax - Assessment Order reached finality - Refund should not have been ordered by High Court when assessment order is not set aside: SC

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAY 26, 2015: THE respondent is a proprietorship firm carrying on the business of building works contract. During the year 1995-1996, the respondent was engaged in the construction of building of Army Welfare Housing Organization, Navy and other allied works. The Army Welfare Housing Organization made a payment of Rs. 7,95,83,112 /- during the year 1995-1996. On the aforesaid amount, Rs.15 ,91,662 /- was deducted as tax at source. The respondent filed its returns for the assessment year 1995-1996. The assessing authority not being satisfied with the returns filed by the respondent, served several statutory notice to the respondent but the respondent did not appear before the assessing authority. Thereafter, the assessing authority has completed the assessment for the assessment year 1995-1996 and passed an ex-parte order dated 26.05.1999 raising an additional demand of Rs.1,05,511 /-.

After the receipt of the assessment order the respondent moved an application under Section 33 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 for rectification of the assessment order dated 26.05.1999. For one reason or the other, the said application has not been disposed of by the assessing authority within the time prescribed under the provisions of the Act. It was only in the year 2005, the Assessing Authority rejected the application for rectification of assessment order dated 26.05.1999 filed under Section 33 of the Act on the ground that the rectification can be done only of a clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the records and it has to be done within two years of passing of the assessment order. Though, there was a statutory remedy available to the respondent to challenge the order dated 02.05.2005, the respondent did not resort to the same and thus the order passed by the assessing authority has attained finality.

Thereafter, the respondent has filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, inter alia, requesting the High Court to direct the Revenue to refund the amount of Rs.15 ,91,662 /- with statutory interest.

The High Court, in its judgment and order observed that the respondent had filed an application for rectification of the order of assessment passed for the assessment year 1995-1996 within the time prescribed under the Act. It was the bounden duty of the assessing authority to have considered the said application within a reasonable time and the assessing authority could not have rejected the application of the respondent for rectification only on the ground of delay.

The High Court further notices that the assessment order passed by the assessing authority rejecting the application filed by the respondent has attained finality. Despite the same the High Court has directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.15 ,91,662 /- .

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should not have passed the order of refund as the assessment order passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1995-96 has attained finality. It is only when a rectification of application is considered and decided by the assessing authority then only the respondent would be entitled for refund of the tax paid.

The Revenue appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. Since the respondent had filed the application for rectification of the assessment order within the time prescribed, Supreme Court directed the assessing authority to consider that application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent.

(See 2015-TIOL-134-SC-CT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.