LAWS(APH)-2001-6-44

RICHARDSON CRUDDAS 1972 LIMITED Vs. C T O

Decided On June 27, 2001
RICHARDSON CRUDDAS (1972) LIMITED, CHENNAI Appellant
V/S
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes and with their consent the writ petition was heard finally.

(2.) The petitioner is a Government of India Undertaking, registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner is engaged in the business of execution of contracts of erecting steel structurals. During the years 1986-87 and 1987-88, the petitioner was assessed to Sales-tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the contracts executed by it in favour of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The disputed levy was set aside by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and remanded. However, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected the principal contention of the petitioner that the items used in works contract constitute second sales. On appeals filed, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in T. A. Nos. 160 and 162/1993 for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 respectively, upheld the petitioner's contention that the goods involved are subject matter of second sales and directed the assessing authority to finalise assessment accordingly. Another T.A.No-157/1993 for the assessment year 1985-86 was also allowed by the Tribunal. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the respondent finalized assessment by his orders dated 7-7-1997. The respondent failed to give credit of certain payments made by the petitioner resulting in a demand of Rs. 23,053/- and Rs. 1,42,550.00 for 1986-87 and 1987-88 respectively. On representations, the respondent has passed orders dated 7-1-2000 (vide Annexure P-1 at Page 9 of the material papers) giving due credit of taxes paid by the petitioner and determined the refund due to petitioner in a sum of Rs. 3,56,952.00 and Rs. 1,49,554.00.

(3.) As stipulated in Form 'C' for each assessment year, the petitioner filed application in Form-XXIII by registered post acknowledgment due in February, 2000 claiming the refund (vide Annexure P-2 at page 13). According to the petitioner, the respondent has forwarded the proposal to the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Visakhapatnam for approval on administrative side and such a course is not contemplated under the Act or Rules.