TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 1119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd of litigation between the petitioner and the Revenue arising out of the same issue. The facts as are relevant for adjudication of the present writ petition are that: (a) The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale-purchase of electronic items. It has a chain of distributors and dealers through whom its goods are sold to ultimate customers. According to the petitioner it has floated several schemes by virtue of which it offers trade discounts against the catalogue price and also cash discounts on immediate payments for the benefit of the distributors and dealers. Contracts in that behalf are entered to that effect at the time of appointment of distributors/dealers itself and the discounts are offered t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough the same fate and on remand by the Deputy Commissioner, the assessing officer passed an order on December 8, 2003 accepting the claim of the petitioner and granting a refund of Rs. 3,68,601. In respect of the assessment year 1999-2000, since the earlier appellate order was already available, the assessing officer considered the matter on merit and by an order dated December 28, 2001 granted a refund of Rs. 86,73,349 to the petitioner. (e) In the result, therefore, with regard to all the three assessment years, the claim of the petitioner for allowing trade discounts in respect of the sales made to its distributors and dealers stood allowed by the assessing officer. Thereafter, the petitioner filed refund claims in respect of the thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... granted by this court to the Assistant Commissioner to pass a reasoned order on the application for refund made by the petitioner in respect of all the three assessment years was to expire on October 21, 2006, a notice was issued on October 18, 2006 asking the petitioner to show cause why refund application be not rejected. On October 20, 2006, i.e., two days after the date of the notice issued on October 18, 2006 the Joint Commissioner rejected the refund applications filed by the petitioner in respect of three assessment years. On the very same day, the Joint Commissioner issued fresh notices to the petitioner to show cause why the assessment orders passed in its favour be not revised suo motu. Thereafter, pursuant to the show-cause n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o a refund. Quashing the order dated October 20, 2006 this court directed the Joint Commissioner to take a decision within six weeks limited, as aforesaid, to the question whether despite the trade discounts given by the petitioner, it had passed on the tax burden to its distributors and dealers or not. (i) Vide the impugned order dated July 4, 2008 the Joint Commissioner has rejected the refund claims of the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the Joint Commissioner erred in not relying on the confirmation received from the dealers and distributors confirming that the latter were issued the credit notes inclusive of tax. On the other hand on behalf of the respondent the impugned order was supported on the ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date given to the Joint Commissioner was limited to the extent of verifying whether the petitioner had passed on the sales tax burden to the distributors. The Joint Commissioner misdirected himself by going into the veracity of the credit notes and re-examining the discounts scheme afresh, which action was wholly unwarranted. It is also seen in the present case that the petitioner has annexed the credit notes and all the other relevant documents along with the writ petition wherein it is clearly stated on behalf of the distributors that "this credit note is inclusive of sales tax". As a matter of fact, in the impugned order itself it has been noticed that the respondent had carried out a verification of the distributors in whose favour t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Even otherwise, the fact that the Joint Commissioner himself got the verification done from some of the distributors, belies the assertion in the impugned order that the petitioner had been directed to obtain confirmation and verification of the credit notes from the distributors. In this behalf it is also observed that the Joint Commissioner cryptically relied on the verification undertaken by the Revenue, without confronting the petitioner with the same and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to contradict the verification. The Revenue, has furthermore, neither produced nor referred to the said verification before this court leading to the inference that the confirmations received from those distributors establish that th....