TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Andhra Pradesh HC orders tax refund with interest, rejecting revision pendency as denial ground.</h1> The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered dealer seeking a refund of tax with interest. The Court held that the ... - Issues:1. Refund of tax with interest.2. Implementation of order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.3. Pendency of revision under section 20 as a ground for denying refund.Analysis:The judgment delivered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed the issue of refund of tax with interest, specifically focusing on the implementation of the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, had sought a writ of mandamus to enforce the order of the Deputy Commissioner granting interest for certain assessment years. The first respondent, while admitting the facts, contended that a show cause notice had been issued by the Joint Commissioner, CT, Legal under section 20(2) of the Act, thereby justifying the non-implementation of the Deputy Commissioner's order.The Court examined the relevant provisions, including rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, which mandates that orders passed on appeal or revision must be given effect by the assessing authority within a specified timeframe. The Court highlighted that the statutory provisions did not empower the first respondent to disregard the Deputy Commissioner's order based on the pendency of a revision under section 20. Additionally, the Court referred to section 33-C, which allows withholding of refunds in certain circumstances with the prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner. However, since no order was passed under section 33-C in this case, the first respondent was deemed unjustified in withholding the refund.The judgment cited a previous Division Bench decision, emphasizing that the mere pendency of a revision cannot serve as a valid reason for withholding the refund of sales tax to the assessee. Therefore, the Court directed the first respondent to comply with the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and refund the tax due to the petitioner within a specified timeframe. Ultimately, the writ petitions were allowed with costs, providing a clear resolution to the issue at hand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
