TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment years: 2007-08 and 2016-17. 2. In 2012, dissatisfied with the petitioner's self-assessment for the AY 2007-08, the assessing officer re-opened the assessment and passed an order imposing a tax liability. The petitioner then challenged it in a statutory appeal. Finally, through the Ext.P1 order, dated 07.05.2013, the appellate authority remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. After remand, on 02.12.2013 the assessing officer issued a notice to the petitioner and received reply dated 23.12.2013. But later, nothing much happened. So the petitioner claims to have sent the Ext.P2 series of reminders. On 14.06.2018, the assessing officer, in terms of the Ext.P4 hearing notice, heard the petitioner. 3. For the AY 2016-17,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his writ petition. Submissions: Petitioner's: 7. Ms. Surya Binoy, the petitioner's counsel, strenuously contends that the whole procedure the assessing officer has adopted is vitiated. According to her, once the revision application was pending, the assessing officer ought not to have pursued the proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act. This assumes importance, she stresses, in the face of the Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner invited from this Court for the previous assessment year. 8. Besides complaining that the Ext.P11 order for the assessment year 2007-08 was passed belatedly, Ms. Binoy also contends, first, that the assessing officer ought to have quantified the amount to be refunded. Then he must have allowed the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not with adjustment, which, according to her, is like a set-off. So she contends that any adjustment made departmentally will, of course, be subject to the appellate proceedings the assessee may take. In this particular case, she adds, the petitioner has not at all gone in appeal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of Section 31(2) of the Act. 13. About the delay the petitioner has complained of in the assessing officer's passing the Ext.P11 order on remand way back in 2013, Dr. James contends that it was because of the petitioner's own conduct, as it often sought time to produce documents. 14. On the adjustment effected in the Ext.P11, Dr. James submits that the assessing officer passed both the Exts.P10 and P11;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n such installments, if any, and within such time, as may be specified in the notice of demand, not being less than fifteen days from the date of service of the notice: Provided that the time limit of fifteen days for a notice under this subsection shall not apply to casual traders." 19. Section 31 concerns the payment or recovery of tax. It mandates that every dealer must pay the tax within a prescribed period. And that prescribed period must be informed through a notice. The period to pay should not be less than fifteen days from the day the dealer receives the notice. So the petitioner contends that, with the instantaneous adjustment, it has lost the chance of paying the tax later. Of course, it also argues that had it prefer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest at the rate of ten percent per annum on the amount due to him from the date of expiry of the said period up to the date of payment or adjustment." 21. The provision plainly reveals that if a dealer has paid tax more than what is due from him, he must have that excess amount refunded to him. Once an assessing authority receives an order from any appellate or revisional authority or any officer under subsection (5) of section 47, to refund tax or penalty to a dealer, he must comply with that. 22. But the assessing authority has the power to adjust the amount due to be refunded towards the recovery of any amount due, on the date of adjustment, from the dealer. If the assessing authority delays refund without justification, the deal....