2012 (3) TMI 704

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has prayed for mandamus, commanding the respondent-authority to issue refund of Rs.16,00,886/- along with interest to the petitioner. 2. The case made out by the petitioner may be summed up thus : 2.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm having its head office at the address mentioned in the cause-title of this application and is dealing with Offset and Block making products. 2.2 The petitioner filed its Return under the Act for the financial years 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. According to the petitioner, it being a registered dealer under the Act, the Returns were filed within the time permissible under the law. The petitioner alleged tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, the respondent should decide such application within four weeks from that date. 4. There is no dispute that although pursuant to such direction necessary application was filed, the Staterespondent did not pass any order pursuant to the said order passed by the Division Bench. Subsequently, on the direction given by this Court dated March 16, 2012, extending the time to file affidavit-in-reply, an affidavit has been filed. 5. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State, it has not alleged that there was any default on the part of the petitioner in terms of Section 41(3) or Section 41(4) of the Act or that the Return was incomplete or that any assessment was made. All that has been stated is that as the dealer has not produced evidence ....