Raghuram Trading Company, Mangalore vs The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, I Circle, Mangalore

R. Gururajan, J.-This petition reflects the high handed action on the part of an officer in not considering the reasonable request of adjustment or refund of the excess amount available with the Department.

The petitioner, a dealer is before me seeking for various prayers.

The petitioner was assessed for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. The respondent levied tax on the petitioner resulting in excess collection of Rs. 38,398/- by the respondent. In the light of this excess amount, the petitioner made a reasonable request of adjustment of this amount in terms of Annexure-A. Annexure-B is issued by the respondent stating therein that adjustment is not permissible unless rectification proceedings are completed. In the light of this endorsement, the petitioner sought for refund of the excess amount in terms of Annexure-C. The same remains not considered. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner is before me.

Heard Sri Nazeer, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He states that authorities are wrong in not considering the reasonable request of either adjustment or refund in the given set of facts. He states that law does not permit the respondent to retain the excess amount in the given set of facts. He wants an order to be passed by this Court.

The State Government has filed a Counter Statement opposing the prayers. They say that rectification proceedings are pending and they are yet to complete those proceedings. Learned Government Pleader says that a direction be issued to the authorities to complete the rectification proceedings and thereafter, an order to be made with regard to the claim of the petitioner.

After hearing the Counsels, I have carefully perused the material on record. Admitted facts reveal of an excess amount in the hands of the authorities to the extent of Rs. 38,398/-. A reasonable request of adjustment is rejected in the absence of any provisions in terms of the Sales Tax Laws. If adjustment is not possible, the only option for the authority is to refund the said amount. They did not do so. In those circumstances, the petitioner made an application seeking for refund of the said amount in the year 1999. Till date, they have not refunded. This gives me an impression that the second respondent wants to retain this amount without any authority of law in spite of the petitioner''s reasonable request. No provision of law is shown to me by the learned Government Pleader to withhold the payment legally refundable to the petitioner in the light of rectification proceedings. In the absence of any law available to the respondents, I have no option but to issue a direction lies to the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 38,398/- together with interest at the rate of 12% from 1-1-2000 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I also deem it proper to observe that the respondents somehow wants to retain the amount without there being any justifiable cause. Such tendency on the part of the authority is to be deprecated in the larger interest of State and the State officials. I deem it proper to direct the office to send a copy of this order to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes with a direction to keep this order in the personal file of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, I Circle, Mangalore, who has passed the order on 10-11-1998.

The petitioner, for no fault of his is driven to this Court for refund of his legal claim. In the normal circumstances, I would not have imposed costs, but the facts of the case compel me to do so, so that the authorities would not act in such a manner in future. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to award costs of Rs. 1,000/- payable to the petitioner by the respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above manner.