HARYANA DRINKS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a private limited company and is working as a dealer registered under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 as also Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act" and "the Central Act") with respondent No. 2 at Rohtak in the State of Haryana. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Rohtak, made the assessment against the petitioner-company under the Act as also under the Central Act for the year 1983-84 creating additional demand of tax amounting to Rs. 6,57,825. In the same manner, assessment for the year 1984-85 was also made by the said authority once again creating additional demand of tax under both the Acts amounting to Rs. 10,59,006. The petitioner paid both the amounts aforesaid but carried an appeal against the said orders before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak. The same, however, did not find favour with the said authority, thus, constraining the petitioner to file second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana by means of four separate appeals. The Tribunal vide orders dated October 18, 1989, allowed all the appeals and passed a consolidated order reflected in annexure P1.

(2.) AFTER the appeals were allowed, the petitioner filed applications annexures P2, P2 (a), P2 (b) and P2 (c) before the assessing authority, i. e. , respondent No. 2 and legitimately prayed that inasmuch as its appeals had since been allowed and the additional liability created against it had since been set aside it should be paid the amount that it had to pay per force of orders passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The aforesaid applications were filed on October 31, 1989 but when the petitioner did not hear for a long time, he sent reminder on December 26, 1989. Instead of making refund, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, vide orders dated April 15, 1990 withheld the refund amounting to Rs. 16,61,802. 80 on the ground that proceedings under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act were still pending against the petitioner as also on the ground that the refund would adversely affect the recovery of the amount later on. The aforesaid order was passed under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act. In fact the petitioner had filed the present writ petition asking for refund prior to the passing of the order aforesaid and it appears that during the pendency of petition, the said order was passed necessitating the petitioner to amend the petition and challenge the order on various grounds.

(3.) WRITTEN statement on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been filed and order, annexure P4, vide which the Commissioner had stayed the refund is sought to be justified only on the strength of Section 44 of the Act.