TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as well as U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Acts"), the assessing authority served notices dated 25.4.2008 proposing to impose Entry Tax on Carbon Black Feed Stock (hereinafter referred to as "CBFS") for the period 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Since the petitioner disputed the imposition of any tax liability on the entry of CBFS in the local area, on the ground, that it was not a notified goods under the Acts, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1153 of 2008 challenging the validity of the Entry Tax Act, 2007 and praying for a declaration in the nature of mandamus or prohibition restraining the assessing authority from imposing Entry Tax for the Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... " If for any reasons the appellants in these appeals want to seek statutory remedies provided under the Act against the assessment orders, best judgment assessment orders, provisional assessment orders, appeals or revisions before appropriate forum, they are at liberty to do so and if such appeals or revisions are filed, we direct the statutory authorities to consider the same in accordance with law." Based on the interim orders, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 6,00,55,272/- and Rs. 5,65,01,326/- for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and also furnished bank guarantee of an equal amount. Based on the order of the Supreme Court dated 13.1.2012, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 7.5.2014 requested respondent Nos.2 and 3, namely, the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Lucknow and the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Varanasi, for allocation of budget, so that appropriate amount could be refunded to the petitioner. Subsequently, on the instructions issued from respondent No.3, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application by an order dated 16.7.2014 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for refund of the amount, on the ground, that the amount of Entry Tax deposited by the petitioner was an admitted tax and the same could not be refunded in view of Section 29(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1948"). The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lance amount also directed that in case the State of U.P. looses the matter, it shall refund to the petitioner the amount deposited with interest at the rate which may be fixed by the Court. In response, the learned counsel for the State reiterated the order of the assessing authority contending that the tax deposited by the petitioner was admitted in the returns and, therefore, was not liable for refund under Section 29(3) of the Act. The learned counsel also raised a further ground that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and since the amount was deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order, consequently, no amount was refundable at this stage till the matter was not finally decided by the Supreme Court. Having h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were substituted. (3) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court or authority, no refund shall be allowed of any tax or fee due under this Act on the turnover of sales or purchases or both, as the case may be, admitted by the dealer in the returns filed by him or at any stage in any proceedings under this Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), where the tax has been paid by a dealer on purchase of certain goods and the value of goods manufactured out of such goods in inclusive of such tax and the State Government remits the tax liability on such purchases retrospectively, the dealer shall not be entitled to refund of tax paid on purchases of such goods unless he proves to the satisfac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of the Tribunal has also become final and, consequently, it was no longer open to the respondents to reject the petitioner's application on the same ground, which has been dealt and decided by the Tribunal and which has been affirmed by the High Court. The contention of the counsel for the State, that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and that the amount was deposited in terms of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court and, consequently, no amount is payable till the matter is finally decided by the Supreme Court, is patently erroneous. No doubt the petitioner has filed a Special Leave Petition questioning the validity of the Act. An interim order dated 10.1.2012 was passed directing the petitioner to deposit 50% ....