TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner towards disputed tax during the pendency of the appeals before the second respondent for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1990-91. The background of each of the cases is similar. For the sake of convenience, we may pick up the fact of the matter from W.P. No. 30588 of 2010. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the rolls of the first respondent, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. For the assessment year 1983-84, the petitioner's assessment was finalised on October 15, 1987. However, having regard to the verification report of the Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement), the first responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first respondent has filed counter-affidavits. In the one filed in W.P. No. 30588 of 2010, the fact of the petitioner paying the disputed tax is not denied. It is, however, stated that the Joint Commissioner (Legal) revised the assessment order for the year 1983-84 under section 20(2) of the Act by proceedings dated March 16, 1991 on the issue relating to tax on packing material and pursuant thereto, the first respondent raised a demand of Rs. 3,03,305. Although the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 52,503, the first respondent stated that the demand raised towards tax against the petitioner is Rs. 38,12,044 for the years 1984-85 to 1992-93, both under the APGST and CST Acts and that the amount refundable was adjusted. In all the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hough the petitioner is entitled for adjustment of the amounts due towards refund, still huge arrears are due from the petitioner. Richardson Cruddas (1972) Ltd. [2001] 33 APSTJ 187 (AP), was a case, which construed section 33B read with section 33F of the APGST Act. In the background of the case, the question was whether the assessee was entitled to claim interest at 12 per cent per annum when the amount of tax was not refunded by the concerned authority. Interpreting both the provisions, it was held that if an amount is not refunded within a period of six months as contemplated under section 33F, the assessee would be entitled to interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum. The question in this case, however, is whether the petitioner ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voluntarily made by a debtor being adjusted by his creditor against a time-barred debt. The provisions in the present case are statutory provisions for coercive recovery of 'amounts due'. Although the necessity of filing a suit by a creditor is avoided, the extent of the claim which is legally recoverable is not thereby enlarged. Under section 70(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act the right of a debtor to file a suit for refund is expressly preserved. Instead of the bank or the financial institution filing a suit which is defended by the debtor, the creditor first recovers and then defends his recovery in a suit filed by the debtor. The rights of the parties are not thereby enlarged. The process of recovery is different. An Act m....