2013 (5) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sment year 1976-1977 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals),[In Short DC A)]. The revision petition was admitted on 20.7.1990 by this Court on the following questions of law which are as under: (1).Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the rate of tax on the sale of Copper Wire Bars and Copper Cathods would be charged and retained @ 4% when according to the accepted position of law the same were held to be falling within the category of Rods and Sheets respectively? (2). Whether the Commercial Taxes Department is entitled to retain the amount of tax which has been collected at a rate more than payable under law? Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Singhal, at the very outset submitted that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner has challenged this finding of the Tribunal that the "petitioner will have no objection if the appeal is allowed". By this finding, when the appeal of revenue has been allowed therefore there is an apprehension from the phraseology used that the counsel appearing before the Tribunal admitted that tax @ 4% could be charged as was the case of Department before the Tribunal, whereas concession was only to the extent of claiming of the refund of the differential amount only to the extent of 3% only. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the Notification, issued by the Government, all throughout the tax @ 1% has been levied by the respondent and accordingly it is being paid @ 1% and question of any admission @....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also could not controvert the notification by which tax of only 1% was leviable. I have considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned cousnel for the parties and have also perused the material on record as well as the impugned order. It appears to me that the controversy involved in the matter is very short and has arisen only on the fact observed by the Tribunal that "if the appeal of the department is accepted, there would be no grievance to the petitioner and on this point this appeal is accepted". It is noticed that the Notification was already in force and on the basis of it, the petitioner was liable to pay the tax @ 1% only though inadvertently, the tax was collected @ 4% and the same in entirety was deposited in the....