TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he business of executing works contracts, including works contracts for South Central Railways, had suffered various orders of assessment, passed under the A.P.G.S.T. Act as well as C.S.T. Act, for the period 1997-1998 to 2001-2002. The details of the assessment periods as well as dates of assessment and subsequent proceedings are contained in the table set out below: Writ Petition No. Rule 50 Application No (16-01-2006) Rule 50 Application Date CTO Order (Rule 50 rejected) Refund Application made pursuant to SC Order CTO Order (Refund Application rejected) ADC Order on Appeal (Remanded) CTO Order on Remand 9667 of 2019 RPP/14/ST/1429 16-01-2006 31-08-2006 07-08-2014 10-03-2015 11-01-2016 10-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Railways and the Commercial Tax Officer concerned. This Writ Petition was disposed of, by way of an Order, dated 29.12.2003, directing the petitioner to file an explanation to the said Notice within two (02) weeks and a further direction to the South Central Railways to take a decision as per Law. Thereafter, the South Central Railways, issued a letter, dated 06.05.2005, informing the petitioner that the excess payment of sales tax would be adjusted by adjusting the sales tax amount, payable to the petitioner, against the remaining bills. The petitioner challenged this decision, of South Central Railways, by approaching the erstwhile High Court, by way of W.P.No.15952 of 2005. This Writ Petition came to be dismissed, on 05.10.2005, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th Central Railways. The petitioner, by virtue of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, filed such applications, before the Assessing Authority and the same came to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, had thereafter, granted liberty to the petitioner to file Appeals against the said orders of rejection and these Appeals also came to be filed. The Appellate Authority had initially remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration of the rejection order. After some more proceedings, the matter ultimately resulted, in an Order, dated 06.09.2018, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer - I (FAC), Adoni, wherein, the turnover relating to free supply of goods was deleted from the assessments and certain amounts of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o interest is payable at all as the refunds should be made within a period of six (06) months from the date on which the refund arose out of an Order. 10. Sri A. Srinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs. Mohan Lal 009 INSC 1209 as well as the judgment of the High Court of Delhi, dated 28.10.2025, in the case of Gameloft Software Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax Range - 152 & Anr. 2025: DHC:9495- DB. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend, on the basis of the aforesaid judgments, that the State cannot behave like a private party as the responsibility of ensuring that a citizen is not put t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as may be prescribed, on or after the date on which the tax or the licence fees in respect of which the claim is made was directed to be refunded. (2). No such claim shall be allowed unless it is made within three years from the date specified in sub-section (1). 33-E. Interest on delayed refunds:--- (1) 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 licensee under section 33-A, the State Government shall pay the assessee or licensee simple interest at [twelve percent] per annum on the amount directed to be refunded from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of [six months] aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etween the expiry of six (06) months, after the filing of the claim till the refund is given. 14. In the present cases, the petitioner became entitled to a refund only after the Commercial Tax Officer, had passed an Order, dated 06.09.2018, on the application made by the petitioner under Rule 50. Thereafter, the refund amount is said to have been paid in October, 2018 itself. If it is to be held that the Order passed under Rule 50 itself gave rise to a refund, the Assessing Authority, at the earliest, had a period of six (06) months for making the said payment. Since the refund was made in October, 2018 within a month of the Order, dated 06.09.2018, there is no delay, which would attract interest @ 12% p.a., as stipulated under Section 3....