AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—The prayer in this writ petition is challenging the order of the first respondent dated 23.7.2004 and consequently seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to refund the excess tax collected by the respondents, pursuant to the auction sale conducted on 4.6.2004. The claim of the petitioner is that the goods, which have been purchased by the petitioner in the said auction, is liable to be levied only at 4% as sales tax and not 11% and therefore, the excess amount collected from the petitioner has to be refunded.
It is seen from the conditions of the tender-cum-auction notice that the successful tenderer is liable to pay 11% sales tax on the bid amount. Clause 4(c) of the said condition reads as follows:
c. The Earnest Money Deposit will be adjusted against balance amount with S.T. at 11% to be paid by the successful tenderer.
Admittedly, the petitioner, by accepting the said tender condition, has participated in the auction and became the successful tenderer and paid the money. Thereafter, now he cannot turnaround and say that he is not liable to pay 11% as sales tax and that the subject matter goods attracts only 4% tax. In my considered view it is not open to the petitioner to canvass the correctness or otherwise of the quantum of tax payable, after having participated in the auction proceedings by accepting the tender conditions and without raising any objection with regard to the quantum of tax payable. According to the petitioner, it attracts only 4% sales tax and on the other hand, the Department says that it attracts 11%. The said dispute with regard to the quantum of tax cannot be gone into in this writ petition, more particularly, when the petitioner by accepting the tender conditions had participated in the auction proceedings. Therefore, I find no merit in the writ petition to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.