PRITHWINATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was (sic) to a director in the State Government (sic) amount of Rs. 5,26,88,3(sic)3. Which has been deposited by the at Patna Circle in respect of sale of (sic) admitedy, had taken (sic) at Chapra. Siwan and Gopalganj.

(2.) This case has a c(sic)equered career and as such it is necessary to state the facts in detail. The Petitioner has been granted exclusive privilege to trade in country liquor from time to time. He filed an application for grant of consolidated registration under Rule 3(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), which was rejected by the sales tax authority. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 5354 of 1999 before this Court, The said writ application was dismissed on 21.6.2000. The Petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 1050 of 2001 before the Apex Court and the Apex Court, by order dated 5.2.2001, quashed the order of this Court as well as that of the sales tax authority and directed the Joint Commissioner to reconsider the matter. A copy of the said order is appended as Annexure 'A' to the counter-affidavit. Thereafter, the matter remained pending with the State Government.

(3.) The Petitioner, in the meantime, was assessed by the sales tax authorities at Chapra and Gopalganj. It further appears that the Petitioner filed a consolidated return as well as deposited the admitted tax at Patna Circle with regard to his business at the said three places and the assessment orders were passed. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a prayer to the sales tax authorities that as he has filed a consolidated return and also deposited the admitted tax at Patna Circle, no effect should be given to the assessment orders passed by the sales tax authorities of Gopalganj and Chapra. In other words, he is not liable to pay amount of tax as assessed at Gopalganj and Chapra. When the authorities did not pay any heed, the Petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7457 of 2002 and the matter was finally disposed of on 12.9.2002 and the claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that unless a consolidated registration is granted under Rule 3(4) of the Rules, no consolidated return in regard to the business of the Petitioner at the said three places can be accepted at Patna and no assessment can be made at Patna. This Court further directed that if the Petitioner had deposited the sales tax at Patna with regard to the sales made in the aforesaid three districts, he might take appropriate remedy for the refund of the amount of sales tax to the extent of the sales or business having been transacted in the aforesaid three districts. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a request to refund the amount. When no decision was taken, he filed the present writ application for refund as stated above.