2003 (3) TMI 678 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court dismisses refund claim due to lack of legal basis, emphasizes adherence to legal procedures

Mysore Cements Ltd. Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others

The court rejected the petitioner's claim for a refund of entry tax paid to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, emphasizing the lack of legal basis for issuing a ... - Issues:Claim for refund of entry tax paid by a registered company, rejection of refund claim by the Government, adjustment of tax by the company, legality of collection of entry tax, applicability of section 3-BB of the Entry Tax Act, challenge of forfeiture and refund procedure, rejection of refund claim by the department, issuance of a writ of mandamus.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered company with a cement manufacturing plant, sought a writ of mandamus for a refund of entry tax paid to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating they were not liable to pay the entry tax. The petitioner then claimed a refund based on this decision. However, the Government rejected the refund claim, leading to the current legal dispute.The first respondent, Indian Oil Corporation, collected the entry tax from the petitioner based on circular instructions. The petitioner unilaterally adjusted the tax amount with subsequent supplies, leading to objections from the respondents. The State Government contended that the tax collection was legal and proper, citing various notifications. The petitioner's counsel argued that the collection was unsustainable in law, seeking a refund from the Government.The legal basis for the dispute lies in section 3-BB of the Entry Tax Act, which prohibits dealers from collecting levies not approved by law. The Act outlines procedures for forfeiture and refund in cases of wrong collection. In this instance, no forfeiture order was issued by the Government, and the petitioner's unilateral adjustment of the tax further complicated the matter. The rejection of the refund claim by the department on grounds of limitation was not challenged, making it difficult for the court to issue a writ of mandamus to unsettle unchallenged assessment or rectification orders.Ultimately, the court rejected the petition, stating that no legal foundation existed for a direction to be issued. However, the court emphasized that the rejection should not hinder the petitioner from pursuing the refund application through legal means if available. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and challenging decisions within the prescribed framework.In conclusion, while the petitioner's claim for a refund was not upheld in this instance, the judgment underscores the significance of following due process and addressing legal issues within the framework of the law.