TATA ROBINS FRASER LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIM of interest made by the petitioner in terms of section 14-C of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, "the Act") read with rule 40 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (in short, "the Rules") having been rejected by the authorities, this Court has been moved for interference.

(2.) FACT situation is almost undisputed. Petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. On the basis of orders of assessment dated August 2, 1991, petitioner was found entitled to refund of Rs. 16,286.30 and Rs. 14,51,919 respectively. Refund applications were filed on August 31, 1991 and the amounts in question were paid to petitioner on April 7, 1992, vide refund payment order-cum-payment advice Nos. 1351 and 1353 of the said date. After receipt of refund vouchers, Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle (opposite party No. 3) was moved by petitioner for payment of interest. Interest was claimed on the total amount of Rs. 14,68,226 in terms of section 14-C of the Act read with rule 40 of the Rules, on the ground that payment having been made beyond 90 days it was entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent for the first ninety days and at the rate of 24 per cent thereafter. According to it, applications for refund were filed on August 31, 1991, and the refund payment order was issued on April 7, 1992 and therefore interest was payable. Since no action was taken, petitioner filed applications before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa (opposite party No. 2) on July 28, 1992 with a prayer to grant statutory interest. This Court was moved for a direction to the Commissioner to dispose of the applications for grant of interest. By order dated August 28, 1992, in O.J.C. No. 5728 of 1992 this Court directed the Commissioner to dispose of petitioner's applications, if pending within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Another application was filed by the petitioner on August 26, 1992, along with a copy of this Court's order. By the impugned order dated November 12, 1992, the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax has rejected the application on the ground that section 14-D deals with power of the Commissioner to withhold refund, and every delay can be construed to be a period during which the refund is withheld under section 14-D of the Act, and section 14-C cannot function independently of section 14-C. The expression "further proceedings under the Act" refers to consideration of papers from stage to stage. Since the dispute is relating to legality of conclusions of the Additional Commissioner it is appropriate to quote the relevant portion.

(3.) SECTIONS 14-C and 14-D are relevant for the purpose of appreciating rival contentions. They read as follows :