CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2021) 12 OHC CK 0020

M/s. Saharia Construction vs Sales Tax Officer, Bargarh Circle & Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 3 December 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ · A. K. Mohapatra, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 7752 Of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 326 words
1.

The present petition has been filed challenging the letter dated 14th March, 2008 issued by the Sales Tax Officer (STO), Bargarh Circle, Bargarh informing the Petitioner that his application for grant of refund in the sum of Rs.39,132/- for the year 2000-01 has already been rejected on 24th March 2005, but the rejection order could not be served on the Petitioner on account of the Petitioner's absence at Bargarh.

2.

It appears that, against the assessment order dated 31st March 2003 in terms of which the refund was held to be due to the Petitioner, an appeal was filed by the Petitioner which came to be disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST), Sambalpur on 16th December, 2004 disagreeing with the percentage of labour and service charges and asking the STO to re-examine the books of accounts of the Petitioner/dealer and re-determine the labour and service components in the works executed by the Petitioner during the period 2001-02.

3.

It is stated that pursuant to the remand by the ACST, Sambalpur, the re-assessment proceeding is pending before the STO.

4.

In view of the order of the ASCT, Sambalpur in the appeal by the Petitioner, it is clear that the refund amount, if any, claimed by the Petitioner pursuant to the original assessment order would have to be reworked. Therefore, notwithstanding that the mere pendency of an appeal should not have deterred the Department from processing the refund application, particularly in view of the decision in Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer (1998) 110 STC 221 (Ori.),in the present case, the Petitioner would have to nevertheless file a fresh refund application depending upon the outcome of the reassessment proceedings.

5.

Consequently, the Petitioner would depending upon the outcome of reassessment proceedings be required to renew its application for refund and thereafter, seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of..

.............................