Telangana High Court
WP/12171/2010 of M/s. Pratibha Constructions Engineers AND Contractors Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.12171 and 12238 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) In these two writ petitions the action of the respondent in not granting the refund claimed by the petitioner in their
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P.No.12171 and 12238 OF 2010
COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
In these two writ petitions the action of the respondent in notgranting the refund claimed by the petitioner in their application inForm-XXIII dated 13.5.2009, for the assessment years 2003-04 and2004-05 (APGST), is under challenge as being illegal and contrary tolaw. A consequential direction is sought to the respondent to refundthe excess tax paid by them with interest at 12% per annum till the dateof refund.
The petitioner is a dealer on the rolls of the respondent. Pursuant to an assessment order being passed, for the assessmentyears 2003-04 and 2004-05 under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957, therespondent determined the excess tax paid by them. The petitioner,thereafter, submitted applications in Form XXIII by registered postacknowledgment due, seeking refund of Rs.9,69,261/- andRs.1,49,976/- respectively. Receipt of the said applications wasacknowledged by the respondent. Petitioner is aggrieved by the factthat, despite a year having elapsed thereafter, no further action hasbeen taken by the respondent to refund the amount paid by thepetitioner in excess.
After the Writ Petition was filed, the matter has suffered eightadjournments till date. Sri P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special StandingCounsel for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, would submit that therespondent has already initiated the process for refund of the saidamount; a proposal has been sent to the Deputy Commissioner; his approval is awaited; and, if the hearing is adjourned by four weeks,refund would be made to the petitioner.
As the Writ Petition has been pending on the file of this Courtfrom 1.6.2010, and has suffered eight adjournments till date, we see noreason to grant further adjournment. In the light of the submissionsmade, across the bar, by the Learned Special Standing Counsel weconsider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions directing therespondent to refund the amounts due to the petitioner, in accordancewith law, within four weeks from today.
Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, inthe circumstances, without costs.
_____________
V.V.S.RAO, J
___________________________
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J30.12.2010ASP