2007 (7) TMI 607

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to adjust or refund an amount of Rs. 19,65,670 due to the petitioner as a refund for the assessment year 1995-96. Counter has been filed and we have heard learned counsel for the parties. Facts are not at dispute. The petitioner had paid the amounts by way of sales tax and the respondents h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the Government treasury at State Bank of Hyderabad for refund of Re. 1 within three months from the date of issue of notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had no difficulty if the amounts found in excess were adjusted for the future liability and as he was only entitled to a refund of Re. 1, there was no need for him to make an application in form No. XXIII, as he had a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... connection, he submits that such a provision in the Orissa Act had been upheld by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Burmah Construction Company v. State of Orissa [1961] 12 STC 816 and also in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1961] 12 STC 357. In the present case, we do not feel it will be necessary for us to go into the question whether the department can refuse payment of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s no need at any stage for the petitioner to approach the respondents with an application for refund. Therefore, in the present case, section 33A of the Act, in our view, has no application. It transpired after some time that the respondents have neither adjusted the amount nor paid it back to the petitioner and as such, this writ petition has been filed. In these circumstances, we allow the writ ....