2012 (6) TMI 764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Appellant : Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy For the Respondents : P. Balaji Varma, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, ORDER:- The order of the court was made by V.V.S. RAO J.-Indian Railway Construction International Limited (IRCON) is fully owned Government of India undertaking. They are engaged in the construction of railway works. The petitioner herein is a registered ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder section 20(1) vide order dated June 12, 2003. The petitioner then filed a special appeal which is pending before this court. Be that as it is, even after the suo motu revision by the first respondent, an amount of Rs. 18,45,309 became refundable. The second respondent accordingly passed a consequential order on September 5, 2003 after providing for tax adjustments for the assessment year 1995....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t amounts to revising the Commissioner's order which is impermissible in law; section 30C(1) of the Sales Tax Act does not empower forfeiture of amount of refund already determined; even if it is construed as empowering the second respondent to forfeit the refundable amount, such forfeiture is beyond the period of three years and is barred under section 30C(2) and the impugned order amounts to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e impugned order forfeiting the refundable amount of Rs. 17,03,322. There is no dispute that while completing the assessment, the second respondent ordered refund on the ground that the TDS under section 5H of the Sales Tax Act was already deducted on ballast and cement and therefore, the tax already paid has to be refunded. This finding remained intact and this stood affirmed by the ADC as wel....