TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94. By the said impugned common order, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals filed by the Petitioner against a common order dated 31st July 1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST), Appellate Unit, Bhubaneswar dismissing the appeals filed by the Petitioner against the assessment order of the Sales Tax Officer (STO), Bhubaneswar II Circle affirming the demands raised for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 of Rs.1,96,783/- and Rs. 2,67,853/- respectively. 2. It must be noted at the outset that while STREV No.41 of 2002 pertains to the year 1992-93, STREV No.42 of 2002 pertains to the year 1993-94. By orders dated 24th February 2003, both these revision petitions were admitted. In STREV No.41....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction from the return GTO towards 1st point tax paid sales amounting to Rs.23,55,852.79 for 1992-93 and Rs.14,69,461/- for 1993-94. 7. The STO in the assessment order for the respective years turned down the above claim of deduction on the ground that the impugned item viz., item sold by the Petitioner was not "pile carpet" as per the notification dated 30th June 1990 and that the carpet sold was therefore subject to last point sales tax @ 16% in terms of Serial No.23 of the schedule of rate of sales tax. Accordingly, the impugned demand was raised in the two respective assessment orders dated 30th November, 1995 of the STO. 8. Both these orders were confirmed by the ACST by dismissing the Petitioner's appeals by separate ex parte orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e known in common parlance as pile carpets. In fact, the ACST had while passing an order on the stay application of the Petitioner on 25th March 1996, relied on the said clarification and observed that since the dealer had effected purchases of pile carpets, there was a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner. Accordingly, a full stay was granted of the demand by the ACST. 13. Mr. Sahoo relied on the decision in P. Rama Rao and Sons v. State of Orissa [1990] 77 STC 303 (Ori) where in similar circumstances concerning the legality of levy of tax at different rates on 'cement' and 'white cement', the contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee was accepted by this Court, which was similar to the contention in the present case. 14. Mr.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following paragraph lucidly expresses the position of law and we find support from the relevant portion of the said decision: "......Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's moneys, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the dharma of the situation admits of no equivocation. There is no law of limitation, especially for public bodies, on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs, nor is it palatable to our jurisprudence to turn down the prayer for high prerogative writs, on the negative plea of 'alternative remedy' since the root principle of law married to justice, is ubi jus ibi remedium...." xxx xxx xxx 10. The same principle has been often discussed under the subject "restit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....colour of public laws recover people's money, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the dharma of the situation admits of no equivocation. There is no law of limitation especially for public bodies on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs. In our view, what is appropriate in the case of tax collected under an invalid law is applicable to the case of tax paid under a bona fide mistaken belief. The adjustment of the amount in such cases would be in consonance with justice and, equity and good conscience." 18. It was further explained that there should not be an unjust enrichment on part of the State and that it would not be proper to tax a person twice in respect of the same transaction particularly ....