TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transfers made by the petitioner in the State of U.P. According to the petitioner, the goods were directly dispatched to its depots located in the State of U.P. and that the goods did not move in pursuance of any pre-determined contract or sale. The present dispute relates from the assessment year 2005-06 (central) to the assessment year 2011-12 (central) with regard to stock transfers, for which separate writ petitions have been filed. For facility, the facts of the Writ Tax No. 28 of 2016 relating to the assessment year 2005-06 (Central) is being taken into consideration. For the assessment year 2005-06 (central), the petitioner disclosed the stock transfers from its depot amounting to Rs. 17,12,47,311.75 paise. The Assessing Authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and furnished bank guarantee for the subsequent assessment years. The petitioner also filed an application dated 11.12.2015 before the Assessing Officer for release of the bank guarantee. The petitioner pointed out that two such bank guarantees were valid till 31st December, 2015. The Assessing Officer, instead of passing orders on the two applications as stated aforesaid, issued a notice dated 15th December, 2015 directing the petitioner to renew the bank guarantee for a period of five years, i.e., till 31st December, 2020, failing which, the registration of the petitioner granted under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act would be cancelled. The Assessing Officer also issued a notice to the State Bank of Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edi, the leanred counsel for the State Bank of India. In so far as the refund of the disputed tax is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Reva Enviro Systems Private Limited, Bareilly Vs. State of U.P. And Others, 2006 U.P.T.C. 351, a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chittoor Electric Supply Corporation and another, Volumn 212 ITR 404 and a decision of this Court in Modi Industries Limited, Modinagar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow and Others, 1982 U.P.T.C.-1097. Learned counsel contended that the decision of the two Division Bench of this Court has not been considered by the Full Bench in Lucent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is refundable, no amount can be refunded to the petitioner at this stage since we find that the assessment proceedings are still pending before the Assessing Officer. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer for refund of the disputed tax pursuant to the setting aside of the assessment order cannot be granted to the petitioner at this stage. With regard to the release of the bank guarantee is concerned, we find that the same was furnished by the petitioner towards security of the stayed amount of disputed tax under Section 10 (8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:- "(8) Where the Tribunal passes an order under this section for the stay of recovery of any tax, fee or penalty or for the stay ....