JOTHI BRICK WORKS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to given a refund of tax collected by the respondent without any authority of law along with eligible interest by considering the representation dated 02.05.2014, sent by the petitioner within a time frame.

(2.) IN the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner is a manufacturer of country bricks with the help of village artisans. The Government of Tamilnadu by notification had exempted the levy of tax on the sale of any country bricks manufactured from clay by village artisans. While so, the respondent had levied tax on the sales of country bricks produced by the village artisans, which were sold by the petitioner and were forced to pay the tax amounts for the assessments years from 1975 -76 to 1984 -85 and also to the subsequent periods from 1984 -85 to 1993 -94. When the petitioner filed appeals against the levy before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Tirunevleli, he had allowed the appeals on 11.05.2004 and set aside the levy of sales tax on the sale of bricks manufactured by village artisans and sold by the petitioner. Against the said order, the Department of Commercial Taxes had filed State appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai. The Tribunal in its common order in MTSA 361 to 366 and 373 to 376 of 2004 dated 30.08.2010 had dismissed the State appeal. Even before the said order, the petitioner had sent a notice through lawyer on 22.08.2002 for refund of the tax with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.. Since the same was not paid, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 104 of 2004 before this Court for directing the respondent to refund the sale tax illegally levied from the petitioner for the years from 1975 -76 to 1984 -85. The above said writ petition was disposed of on 10.12.2004, directing the respondent to refund the whole of the sale tax levied in respect of country bricks sold by the petitioner and bricks manufactured by village artisans with interest at 12% p.a. within a period of one month. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had sent a letter to the respondent to refund the whole sales tax amount collected by him. But the respondent sent a reply on 25.01.2005 stating that the tax levied and collected from the petitioner for the year 1984 -85 viz. Rs. 75,575/ - has been refunded on 12.11.2004. So the question of refund relating to the year 1984 -85 does not arise. As regards the other periods, the respondent took a stand that the assessment has become final and the sales tax collected cannot be refunded. Hence, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 13/2005 for disobeying the order of this Court on 17.03.2005. This Court disposed off the Contempt Petition, holding that the respondent are not liable to be proceeded against for contempt because the learned Judge was of the opinion that the order of this Court dated 10.01.2004 is confined only to the year 1984 -85. However, liberty was given to question the assessment in accordance with law. Hence, the petitioner filed another W.P.(MD) No. 11113/2005 before this Court to direct the respondent to refund the sale tax levied by him and recovered from the petitioner for the years 1975 -76 to 1983 -84. This Court by order dated 05.07.2011, directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority under the Act. Hence, the petitioner once again submitted their representation on 11.09.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent several times in person, but the claim of the petitioner had not been redressed till date. Finally, the petitioner had sent a representation on 02.05.2014. The petitioner had also enclosed a chart with the details of refund amount to be paid to them along with interest for the period from 1975 -76 to 2013 -14. But the same was not considered so far. The petitioner is running from pillar to post for the past 40 years to get the refund of tax collected by the respondent without any authority. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

(3.) IN view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and in view of the averments made in the affidavit, this Court without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.05.2014, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.