HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner's submission is that it has challenged the re -assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 45 of the Bihar Finance Act. The appellate authority is not functioning due to transfer of the officer from the post of the appellate authority. It is also submitted that the petitioner is entitled for refund of more than Rs. 6.00 Crores from the Sales Tax Department of the State for which refund notices have also been issued by the State Sales Tax Department and that pertains to the period 2001 -02, 2002 -03 and 2003 -04. Inspite of these dues of the petitioner in the revenue, the petitioner has been served with the demand notices for total amount of about Rs. 1.80 Crores (in all three cases).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State submitted that it is true that the petitioner is claiming refund of Rs. 6,04,94,310/ - but, for this amount, review proceedings under Section 47 of the Bihar Finance Act are pending which could not be decided by the reviewing authority due to non -cooperation by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner preferred appeals before the appellate authority and in last one year could not get interim order from the appellate authority. Therefore, there is no reason to grant interim relief to the petitioner at this stage. It is also submitted that the appellate authority is likely to be posted within a period of one week time or ten days time.