2015 (3) TMI 739

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anies Act. The petitioner was, at the relevant time, engaged inter alia in the trade of Intravenous Fluids. The petitioner was, therefore, liable to pay sales-tax on such trading. As per the petitioner, the company faced serious financial difficulties in the year 2002, and was thus unable to pay all its sales-tax dues. Ample proceedings, therefore, ensued. Under a notification dated 02.04.2012, the Government of Gujarat published an Amnesty Scheme to be operative between 01.04.2012 to 30.09.2012 concerning sales-tax dues up to the financial year 20052006. The Scheme provided that all sales-tax dues up to Rs. 20,000/would be waived with interest and penalties, for which, no application would have to be filed. In case of other defaulters up t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of taking benefit of the Scheme, applied to the authority under a communication dated 27.08.2012. In response to such application the Commercial Tax Officer, Junagadh, under his communication dated 21.04.2012 conveyed to the petitioner that the outstanding tax demand comes to Rs. 6,84,621/for the period between 19981999 to 20032004. 5. It is stated in the petition that at the time of actual payment such sum was revised to Rs. 6,56,713/, which was paid by the petitioner under different Challans. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted the benefit of the Scheme and all the past disputes and proceedings were buried as envisaged under the Amnesty Scheme. 6. On 28.09.2012, the petitioner wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us that the respondents have opposed the request of the petitioner only on the ground that no refund was payable under the Scheme. We would deal with this objection at a later stage. For the time being, we record that the respondents have not presented any calculation either to confirm or to dispute the petitioner's claim that there has been an overpayment of tax as per the terms of the Scheme. In fact, it appears that no such exercise was undertaken to verify the petitioner's claim. We, therefore, proceed on that basis. 11. The question is if the petitioner is correct in establishing that there has been an overpayment under the Scheme, can the respondents still refuse to return the same placing reliance on paragraph 13 of the sa....