SUBBAIAH CHETTY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TIRUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was assessed for sales tax on Palmolive oil from 1/4/1994 to 15/8/1994. Tax was levied at the rate of 8% by treating that Palmolive oil fell under First Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') on a premise that the oil was purchased from outside the State and sold within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The tax was levied at the rate of 2% from 16. 04. 1995 to 31. 03. 1996. Questioning the assessment order and levy of tax at the rate of 8% from 01. 04. 1995 to 15. 08. 1995, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, on the basis of a judgment of supreme Court in Anand Commercial Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer, 25 APSTJ 254 allowed the appeal, directing the assessing authority to levy tax at the rate of 2%.

(2.) THE revisional authority, Hyderabad revised the orders of both the assessing authority and the appellate authority on the assumption that both the orders were prejudicial to the State and he was of the view that the Supreme Court's decision was mis-interpreted. The order of the revisional authority was questioned before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') by way of an appeal being T. A. No. 633 of 2001. The appeal was allowed with a finding that the tax should be levied at the rate of 2% on the sale of non-refined oil under Entry 21 of the First Schedule. It upheld the orders of the appellate Deputy Commissioner and set aside the orders passed by the revisional authority. The petitioner contends that he was made to pay taxes, which were disputed before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. After the appeals were allowed, he approached the respondent to refund the tax, which he was made to pay during the pendency of the appeal. He was informed that since the appellate authority's order was subject to revision, therefore, the amounts were withheld under Section 33-C of the Act and claim was not considered. After the Tribunal decided the matter and the Joint Commissioner's order was set aside, the respondent passed an order in Form-C on 02. 05. 1995 showing that the petitioner was entitled to refund of an amount of Rs. 1,86,811/ -. The petitioner has made an application by way of Form-33 Refund of Claim Petition, which was considered and refund of Rs. 1,86,811/- was paid to the petitioner on 18. 01. 2006.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that in terms of Section 33-B of the Act, he was entitled to refund without making any application and if the amounts were not paid within six months, the petitioner was entitled to interest on the amount. Because of the orders passed in revision, the petitioner was not paid the refund amount and the amounts were only paid to him after the orders were passed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, in terms of Section 33-F (2) of the Act, the interest is payable if the amounts were finally determined to be due. The petitioner, placing reliance on Section 33-F (2), made a representation on 20. 02. 2006, requesting the respondent to pay interest on rs. 1,86,811/-, as the amount has been withheld under Section 33-C. The order of the appellate authority had been passed on 04. 02. 1998. The period of six months would expire on 04. 08. 1998 and the refund amount was withheld till 18. 01. 2006. As such, the petitioner requested that the interest should be paid from 04. 08. 1998 to 18. 01. 2006.