AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t years 1980-81. 3. Subsequently, the said orders were revised by the Dy.Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division on 11.3.1987 (1979-80) and 9.3.1987 (1980-81) on the ground that the Commercial Tax Officer had levied basic tax at 3% instead of 8% on packing material, and so an additional demand was raised by Form B-3 demand notice. 4. The said additional demand was the subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court of India in WP.No.1688 of 1987. Pursuant to an interim order passed by the said Court, petitioner paid Rs. 13,03,679/- and Rs. 15,06,753/- through Demand drafts bearing No. 014826 and 014827 both dt.31.5.1988 drawn on the Central Bank of India, Secunderabad in favor of the Commercial Tax Officer, Company Circle, Punjagutta. The Supreme Court on 25.9.1989 remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent. 5. By order dt.24.1.1990, the 2nd respondent again confirmed the levy on packing material at the basic rate of 8% and levied additional tax of Rs. 28,10,432/-. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred TA.No.s398 and 399 of 1990 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 7. The said Tribunal, by a common order dt.3.2.1993 allowed the appeals filed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t's order dt.21.4.2015 has been filed more than 4 ½ years. 17. On 26.11.2019, this Court issued show cause notice to Mr.V.Anil Kumar, IAS, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, State of Telangana to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against him for willful disobedience of the said order. The Special Government Pleader for the State of Telangana was directed to communicate this order to the said officer. 18. Thereafter on 29.11.2019, an affidavit was filed by the said Officer stating that after he received the order dt.21.4.2015, he asked the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad to verify and report and that the latter gave a report on 27.4.2015. 19. In the said report dt.27.4.2015 of the Dy.Commissioner, he certified that the amount of Rs. 28,10,432/- was paid by the petitioner through the two Demand drafts mentioned above; that later the Company Circle was disbanded and the file of the petitioner was transferred to other circles such as Punjagutta, Begumpet and Secunderabad Division; that letters were addressed to the Punjagutta Division and the S.D.Road Circle for particulars of chal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Drafts amounts to payment. In the said case, this Court held: "12. Admittedly, the plaintiff had to pay 25% of the cost price to the defendants out of Rs. 2,34,715/-, amounting to Rs. 58,000/- for which only Rs. 40,000/- were paid and a balance of Rs. 18,000/- were outstanding. This is made emphatic both in the pleadings and the evidence. But at the same time, admittedly, the balance out of 25% of the cost price was not at all paid much less the plaintiff was interested in paying the same as a part of pursuing or concluding the contract. Therefore, in other words, the transaction failed due to the non-payment of the agreed part payment of the cost-price. There is nothing to indicate either from the pleadings or from the evidence as to where the balance of the agreed part payment was to be paid. Therefore, that may not decide the basis to fix the jurisdiction of the court. However, there is a clear admission and evidence in the case that Rs. 40,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to the defendants by means of two bank drafts (one for Rs. 35,000/- and another for Rs. 5,000/-) which were handed over to one Krishnaswami at Nirmal and it is not denied by the defendants that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... general to which, as part of the surrounding circumstances, attention has to be paid under the authorities cited above, the parties must have intended that the cheques should be sent by post which is the usual and normal agency for transmission of such articles and according to the Tribunal's findings they were in fact received by the assessee by post. Apart from the implication of an agreement arising from such business usage the assessee expressly requested the Government to "remit" the amounts of the bills by cheques. This, on the authorities cited above, clearly amounted in effect to an express request by the assessee to send the cheques by post. The Government did act according to such request and posted the cheques in Delhi. It can scarcely be suggested with any semblance of reasonable plausibility that cheques drawn in Delhi and actually received by post in Aundh would in the normal course of business be posted in some place outside British India. This posting in Delhi, in law, amounted to payment in Delhi. In this view of the matter the referred question should, with respect, have been answered by the High Court in the affirmative. We, therefore, allow the appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arison to an authority who takes administrative decisions. On that ground also the advice of the second respondent to the first respondent based on which the impugned endorsement is issued cannot be sustained. 13. Before parting with this case, we are compelled to observe certain things that are recurring in the VAT administration in the State of Andhra Pradesh especially in the area of refunds/adjustments . More often than not we have come across cases where Joint Commissioners/Additional Commissioners have sent proposals for refund to the Government and the approval never comes from the Government. As observed by the Division Bench in BSNL, so as to achieve the distinction of enforcing a fair tax paying structure, the State must act fairly. If the appropriate prescribed authority decides the amount to be refunded, any lapse on the part of the State Government or any of its agents in withholding the same would certainly be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Repeated contravention of Constitution provision cannot be approved. The State Government would do well to prescribe a time schedule to ensure timeliness in granting approvals for refund of the amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of Sections 33E and 33F deal with interest on delayed refund. 38. Section 33E mandates that if the assessing authority or the licensing authority does not grant the refund within six months from the date on which the claim for refund is made by the assessee or the licensee. 39. Under Section 33A, the State shall pay the assessee or licensee simple interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount directed to be refunded following the expiry of the period of six months aforesaid to the date of the order granting the refund. 40. Section 33F enjoins that where a refund is due to the assessee or licensee in pursuance of an order referred to in Section 33B and the assessing or licensing authority does not grant the refund within a period of six months from the date of such order, the State shall pay the assessee or the licensee simple interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of refund due from the date following the expiry of the period of six months aforesaid to the date on which the refund is granted. 41. Sub-section (2) of Section 33F deals with the refunds withheld under the provisions of Section 33C and enjoins the State Government to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of refund ultima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmane reasons. 43. If power granted for a particular purpose by the Statute, is exercised for a different purpose, that power has not been validly exercised. If the exercise of a discretionary power is influenced by considerations that cannot lawfully be taken into account or by the disregard of relevant considerations required to be taken into account, the Courts would hold that the power has not been validly exercised. The interpretation of statutory purpose and of the relevancy of considerations are closely related; since the question in regard to the considerations taken into account in reaching a decision is normally whether that consideration is relevant to the statutory purpose. Where the statutory purpose is explicit, the power conferred, though discretionary, is a grant of discretion to be exercised within the locus of the permitted statutory purpose. Whether the exercise is consistent with the statutory purpose is an aspect falling within judicial review." (emphasis supplied) 43. In the instant case, the respondents had withheld the refund for 11 years on ground of 'want of cross-verification details' which is not a ground mentioned in Sec.33-C for wi....