2001 (6) TMI 810

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the contracts executed by it in favour of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The disputed levy was set aside by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and remanded. However, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected the principal contention of the petitioner that the items used in works contract constitute second sates. On appeals filed, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in TA Nos.160 and 162 of 1993 for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 respectively, upheld the petitioner's contention that the goods involved are subject-matter of second sales and directed the assessing authority to finalise assessment accordingly. Another T.A. No.157 of 1993 for the assessment year 1985-86 was also allowed by the Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent herein has passed the order in GI No.86-87, dated 7-7-1997. There after wards, formal orders dated 7-1-2000 bearing GI No.5611/86-87 were issued by the respondent certifying that the excess tax of ₹ 3,56,952/- and ₹ 1,49,554/- were collected from the petitioner-dealer for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. Although, the respondent filed counter affidavit opposing the relief, we should state that the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes quite fairly did not press the untenable defence taken in the affidavit. 5. Section 33-B of APGST Act reads: "Where as a result of any order passed in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee or licensee, the assessi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the date on which the period of six months contemplated under Section 33-F of the Act expired. It is stated that the respondent till date has not refunded the excess tax. The plea taken by the respondent in the counter is that he did not refund the excess tax to the petitioner because he had to seek 'no objection' from the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes has not granted such approval because the petitioner has failed to produce some books of accounts demanded by the Deputy Commissioner. This is totally an untenable plea and excuse not to refund the tax in time. 8. At the time of hearing, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes was not in a position to draw....