TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, "the OST Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 having it's registered office at: 12/1, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata. The petitioner entered into a contract with M/s. National Aluminium Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, "the NALCO") for civil and structural construction at NALCO's plant site, Angul. Pursuant to the said contract with NALCO, the petitioner opened a site office at Angul and got itself registered under the OST Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8, 1997 as to why the orders of reassessment dated March 31, 1997 passed by the STO should not be revised under rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, "the OST Rules"), as the same was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. On August 29, 1997, the ACST passed an order under rule 80 of the OST Rules raising tax demand against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the ACST under rule 80 of the OST Rules, the petitioner filed writ petitions bearing O.J.C. No. 15198 of 1997 and O. J. C. No. 15199 of 1997 before this court. This court on July 12, 2000, set aside the impugned orders passed by the ACST under rule 80 of the OST Rules and remitted the matter back to the ACST for examination/ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15, 2001. He should have released the refund along with interest immediately after June 15, 2001 when the assessment attained finality instead of asking the petitioner to file fresh refund applications. Mr. Kar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the STO. According to him, since the orders of reassessment granting refund for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were the subject-matter of further proceeding under the Act, the learned STO was justified to reject the petitioner's refund applications dated May 2, 1997 on July 12, 2001 by the impugned orders. However, he fairly conceded that no order has been passed by the Commissioner withholding refund exercisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner's refund applications dated May 2, 1997 were rejected vide impugned orders dated July 12, 2001. Challenging the impugned orders, the petitioner approached this court on September 4, 2001. Section 14 provides that the Commissioner shall, in the prescribed manner, refund to a dealer applying in this behalf any amount of tax, penalty or interest paid by such dealer in excess of the amount due from him under the OST Act, either by cash payment or by deduction of such excess amount from the amount of tax, penalty or interest due in respect of any other period. Thus, for claiming refund under section 14 there must be an order of assessment or an order imposing penalty or a final order passed in appeal or revision/reference g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e STO for rejecting the petitioner's refund applications is that the orders of the STO from which the refund flows became infructuous when the learned ACST raised demand to the tune of Rs. l,62,508 and Rs. 57,815 for the year 1984-85 and Rs. 6,81,639 and Rs. 1,08,523 for the year 1985-86 under the OST Act and OAST Rules, respectively, vide order dated August 28, 1997, against which, petitioner filed writ petitions before this court challenging the said orders. In the impugned orders, the STO has not assigned any reason as to why he has not released the amount of refund within ninety days from the date of filing of refund applications and waited till orders were passed by the learned ACST raising demand against the petitioner in his suo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the statute and cannot be condoned. The court awarded interest under such circumstances. This court in Mahabir Rice Mill v. Sales Tax Officer [2000] 120 STC 236, held that failure to intimate dealer about the defect, if any, in the application for refund within ninety days because of his own fault, the Sales Tax Officer cannot deny interest. Enquiry, if any, required under rule 39(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules has to be conducted within the period of ninety days, which is the time-limit prescribed for grant of refund. A similar view has also been taken by this court in Delkon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela [2009] 21 VST 426 (Orissa) (W.P. (C) No. 6619 of 2008) disposed of on November 19, 2008. As it appears, the STO ha....