TATA CUMMINS LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Writ Petitions (Tax) have been preferred for different years, but mainly for refund of the Purchase tax i.e. sales tax paid by the petitioner on purchase of raw materials by it from M/s Tata Motors Limited. Other prayers have been made for payment of interest upon the refund amount and for declaration that petitioner's right to claim refund of Purchase tax is not dependent upon issuance of Excess Demand Notice under Section 42 of the Bihar Finances Act, 1981 (as adopted by the State of Jharkhand).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions have submitted that main lead matter has been treated as W.P. (T) No. 1908 of 2013 because the points raised in rest of the petitions are similar, but, they are writ petitions of different years, except this, there is no other difference, therefore, W.P. (T) No. 1908 of 2013 is treated as a lead matter.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 2037520376/2000 dated 28th March, 2001 as submitted that the claim of refund of the writ petitioner has already been crystallized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This judgment is read with the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 31st July, 2003 in W.P. (T) No. 2587 of 2003, to be read with the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 57 and even interlocutory application preferred by the State in the Civil Appeal No. 10272 of 2003, which has been disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that refund applications were preferred which are at Annexure8 onwards to the W.P. (T) No. 1908 of 2013, but the respondent authorities have not decided the same and has not, therefore, refunded the purchase tax i.e. sales tax paid by this petitioner on purchase of raw materials from M/s Tata Motors Limited for different years. Averment has also been made in the writ petition that the purchase tax was paid from the pocket of the petitioner and the same has not been realized by the petitioner from its customer and, hence, there is no question of any unjust enrichment, whatsoever arises and, therefore, this amount may be increased and the interest paid on purchase tax may be refunded by this Court by issuing necessary writ of Mandamus.