TRIVENI FUELS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regarding tax sage Ved Vyas in his famous epic Mahabharat thus said: "State Tax be such which should not prove to be a burden on the subject; the King should behave like those bees which collect honey without causing harm to the tree." (12/88/4) (translated by us).

(2.) The aforesaid golden words were reiterated by the famous economist and statesman Vishnu Gupta, popularly known as Chanakya alias Kautilya, of the Maurya period in his famous treaties "Arthashastram" written near about 320 B.C. The aforesaid golden words which fell from the pen of sage Ved Vyas and reiterated by Kautilya, is the foundation stone of State taxation in our country. However, while making the refund, this principle is conveniently forgotten by the authorities.

(3.) How far the Trade Tax authorities can go in order to ensure that the target fixed for collecting the revenue in a fiscal year is achieved and they are not asked to give explanation for the short fall, can be seen in the present case. While the Trade Tax authorities are at liberty to take recourse to legal means available under the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the U.P. Trade Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") as also other allied laws on the subject but they cannot be permitted to use extra-constitutional method in depriving an assessee of his rightful dues. While they are prompt in collecting the tax revenue, the promptness disappears and takes a back seat when the question arises on granting refund and that too alongwith interest as provided under Section 29 of the Act. This court has been flooded with the petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the Trade Tax authorities to grant refund as also interest. The present petition is one such example. Time and again, this Court had expressed its concern over the indifferent attitude adopted by the Trade Tax authorities is not making the refund and refusing to pay the statutory interest but appears to have fallen on the deaf ears without taking any corrective measures in this regard. Even the conditional Order passed by the Court in one of such cases for personal appearance of the Secretary, Tax and Registration, Government of U.P., and the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow to appear or to make the refund with interest, has not shaken the Trade Tax Department as they went for the second option and avoided from personal appearance before the Court by making the refund with interest. We are constrained to observe that the Court does not appreciate this highhandedness and arbitrary attitude of the Trade Tax authorities in sitting tight over the matter where refund is to be granted and/or raising all sorts of objections and resorting to all methods on which they can lay their hands which are wholly irrelevant and extraneous and are being raised only with a view to defeat the legitimate claim for refund.