Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6018/2024 on 21 January, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/25
GAHC010218532021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) No.4240/2022
M/S Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries
...
Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Assam & 4 Others
...Respondents.
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. G. Rahul, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. B. Choudhury, SC. Taxes
With
WP(C) No.4463/2024
Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia
...Petitioner.
Versus
M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another
...Respondents.
Page No.# 2/25
With
WP(C) No.4465/2024
Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia
...Petitioner.
Versus
M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another
...Respondents.
With
WP(C) No.5968/2024
Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia
...Petitioner.
Versus
M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another
...Respondents.
With
WP(C) No.5969/2024
Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia
...Petitioner.
Versus
M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another
...Respondents.
Page No.# 3/25
With
WP(C) No.5970/2024
Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia
...Petitioner.
Versus
M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries
...Respondent.
With
WP(C) No.6002/2024
Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia
...Petitioner.
Versus
M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another
...Respondents.
Page No.# 4/25
With
WP(C) No.6003/2024
Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia
...Petitioner.
Versus
M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries & Another
...Respondents.
With
WP(C) No.6018/2024
Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia
...Petitioner.
Versus
M/s Gayatri Distillers & Bottling Industries
...Respondent.
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. B. Choudhury, SC. Taxes
Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. G. Rahul, Advocate
Page No.# 5/25
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025
Date of Judgment : 21.01.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Finance and Taxation Department of the
Government of Assam who appears on behalf of the petitioners
in WP(C) No.4463/2024; WP(C) No.4465/2024; WP(C)
No.5968/2024; WP(C) No.5969/2024; WP(C) No.5970/2024;
WP(C) No.6002/2024; WP(C) No.6003/2024 and WP(C)
No.6018/2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'the batch of writ
petitions'). Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.4240/2022. The writ petitioner
in WP(C) No.4240/2022 is the respondent in the batch of writ
petitions wherein Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appears for
the respondent.
2. The batch of writ petitions so filed by the Assistant
Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia as petitioner is intrinsically
connected to the writ petition filed by the petitioner in WP(C)
No.4240/2022, and as such, all the writ petitions are taken up for
disposal together.
Page No.# 6/25
3. The facts which led to the filing of the writ petitions are
narrated infra.
The petitioner in WP(C) No.4240/2022 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the petitioner firm') is a proprietorship firm having its
principal place of business at Tinsukia, Assam is engaged in the
business of bottling and trading in Indian Made Foreign Liquor
(for short, 'IMFL') The said firm sales its goods both within the
State of Assam and also to various other States in India. The
petitioner firm is registered under the provisions of the Assam
Excise Act, 1910; the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as well as the
Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Act of 2003').
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Central VAT Audit Cell
who is the respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.4240/2022 had
assessed the petitioner firm under Section 36 of the Act of 2003
for the assessment years 2005-2006; 2006-2007; 2007-2008 and
2008-2009 and passed assessment orders dated 22.03.2011;
15.07.2011; 25.07.2011 and 20.09.2011 respectively. For the
sake of convenience, the following Chart would show as regards
the Assessment Years, Net Demand and Date Of Assessment
which is mentioned herein under:-
Page No.# 7/25
Assessment Year Net Demand Date of
Assessment
2005-2006 Rs.20,300,251/- 22.03.2011
2006-2007 Rs.6,54,93,675/- 15.07.2011
2007-2008 Rs.10,16,25,172/- 25.07.2011
2008-2009 Rs.21,20,72,683/- 20.09.2011
5. The petitioner firm being aggrieved preferred revision
applications under Section 82(2) of the Act of 2003 in respect to
each and every impugned assessment orders. The petitioner firm
deposited 25% of the disputed amount for the assessment year
2005-06 as a pre-deposit. In respect to the other assessment
years, i.e. 2006-07; 2007-08 and 2008-09, the petitioner firm
deposited 20% of the principal amount plus Rs.35 lakhs for each
assessment year as would appear from the directions passed by
this Court in various writ petitions.
6. The record reveals that upon making the pre-deposits, the
revision petitions filed by the petitioner firm were admitted. The
Revisional Authority vide two detailed orders dated 26.02.2020
allowed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner firm for the
periods 2005-06; 2006-07; 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the
jurisdictional Assessing Officer was directed to pass fresh
assessment orders within 30 days in the light of the observations
made in the said common orders dated 26.02.2020.
Page No.# 8/25
7. The petitioner firm, on the basis of the orders dated
26.02.2020 sought refund of the amounts which the petitioner
firm deposited as pre-deposits. Various representations were
submitted for refund of the said amount. However, the said
amount so deposited was not refunded. On the other hand, on
18.11.2021, the respondent No.5 had issued a show cause notice
asking the petitioner firm to show cause as to why the
application for the refund should not be rejected as irregular and
incorrect and why it should not be held that the petitioner firm
was intentionally interfering with the decision of the Department
to file Appeal(s) against the order of revision dated 26.02.2020
which quashed the assessment orders. Being aggrieved by the
inaction on the part of the respondents in WP(C) No.4240/2022
to refund the pre-deposits and further assailing the show cause
notice dated 18.11.2021, the petitioner firm approached this
Court by filing the writ petition which has been registered and
numbered as WP(C) No.4240/2022.
8. It is relevant to take note of that this Court vide an order
dated 24.06.2022 issued notice and observed that the pendency
of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the respondents to
return the pre-deposits made by the petitioner while preferring
the revision applications in terms with the orders dated
26.02.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam
Page No.# 9/25
as per their entitlement, following the due procedure of law and
if there is no impediment in releasing the same.
9. The record reveals that on 31.07.2024, when the matter was
listed before this Court, it was informed that the Appeals have
been filed before the learned Assam Board of Revenue against
the order dated 26.02.2020. It was further submitted that as the
learned Assam Board of Revenue did not have the quorum, the
appeals have not been taken up for consideration. Under such
circumstances, this Court made a query upon the learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance and
Taxation Department of Assam as is reflected in the order dated
31.07.2024 as to whether the respondent authorities can hold on
to the amount which is liable to be refunded, that too without
there being any order staying the refund to the petitioner firm.
In addition to that, this Court further enquired as to whether
non-refunding the amount to which the petitioner firm is entitled
would require interest to be paid by the State respondents.
10. When the matter was again listed before this Court on
01.10.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance and
Taxation Department of the Government of Assam had submitted
an instruction issued by the Commissioner of Taxes to the effect
that there being no fresh assessment made as per the revisional
orders dated 26.02.2020, and as such, without the fresh
Page No.# 10/25
assessment orders being made, the question of granting any
refund does not arise. On the basis of the said submission, this
Court observed as recorded in the order dated 01.10.2024 that
the petitioner firm had initially submitted self assessment.
Subsequent thereto, an audit assessment were carried out
wherein various assessment orders were passed in respect to
various financial years. These assessment orders have been set
aside and quashed and thereby directing the Assessing Officer to
pass appropriate order giving effect to the revisional orders
dated 26.02.2020. The revisional order dated 26.02.2020 had not
been stayed in any proceedings, and as such, the Assessing
Officer was bound to follow the orders dated 26.02.2020 giving
effect to the directions passed therein. Under such
circumstances, this Court had put a query upon Mr. B.
Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance and
Taxation Department that taking into account that giving effect
to the orders dated 26.02.2020 and passing fresh assessment
orders being not done within a particular period as to whether
the same would not be contrary to the provisions of the Act of
2003 which categorically prescribes a period within which the
order of assessments were to be passed, i.e. 30 days. The
learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance and
Taxation Department sought for time, and accordingly, the
Page No.# 11/25
matter was listed on 05.11.2024.
11. When the matter was again listed on 05.11.2024, it was
informed that various writ petitions have been filed by the
Assessing Officer challenging the revisional orders dated
26.02.2020 passed in respect to the Act of 2003 and Central
Sales Tax Act, 1956. Accordingly, taking into account that the
instant writ petition being WP(C) No.4240/2022 was intrinsically
connected with the batch of writ petitions challenging the
revisional orders dated 26.02.2020, this Court vide an order
dated 05.11.2024 had tagged all these writ petitions together.
12. A perusal of the contents of the batch of writ petitions so
filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia, who is
the Assessing Officer challenging the revisional orders dated
26.02.2020 would show that the challenge is made primarily on
the non-compliance of a Circular bearing No.15/2010 issued by
the Commissioner of Taxes dated 23.08.2010.
13. Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of the Finance and Taxation Department of the
Government of Assam submitted that on account of an
apprehension that many dealers may show local sale at inter-
State sale thereby evading sales tax at a rate of 27% over and
above the excise duty payable whereby the State would be losing
Page No.# 12/25
substantial amount of revenue, a circular was issued being
Circular No.15/2010 dated 23.08.2010 whereby it was impressed
upon all concerned to conduct thorough VAT audit of such cases.
The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that in terms
with the said Circular, the officers who are appointed to assist the
Commissioner of Taxes in terms with Section 3 of the Act of 2003
should not only rely upon 'C' forms produced by the dealer but
should also make necessary verification of actual movement of
the goods. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that
it was an incumbent duty upon all the officers to look and verify
the receipt of payment of the goods, proof of despatch, proof of
payment of freight to the transporter, proof of movement
through concerned check post, relevant excise documents of
importing State and Assam may be insisted upon. The learned
Standing Counsel submitted that the revisional authority did not
take into those aspects of the matter while passing the impugned
order dated 26.02.2020, and it is under such circumstances, the
Government is now faced to lose a substantial amount of money
on account of VAT.
14. Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner firm as well as the respondent in the batch of writ
petitions filed by the Assessing Officer submitted that a perusal
of the order dated 26.02.2020 would show that the Revisional
Page No.# 13/25
Authority had made each and every verification while passing the
impugned order. He submitted that the Revisional Authority had
taken into account the communications which have been issued
by the Tax Authorities of the States of Arunachal Pradesh and
Nagaland which constitute 95% of the inter-State sales. He
further submitted that, in addition to that, the respective excise
ledgers and challans have also been duly taken note of. The
learned counsel submitted that as this Court is exercising the
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court would
only see as to whether the decision of the Revisional Authority
stood vitiated on the ground of irrelevant and extraneous
consideration. He further submitted that the pre-deposits so
submitted was for the purpose of admission of the revision
petitions and was not a duty paid, and under such
circumstances, with the revisional applications being allowed it
was incumbent upon the respondents/the State Taxation
Authorities to refund the said amount. He submitted that the
delay which has been caused had resulted in tremendous
financial implication upon the petitioner firm, and as such,
interest at the rate of 15% should at least be awarded as a
compensatory measure for the illegally withholding to the pre-
deposit amounts. In that regard, the learned counsel has
referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Page No.# 14/25
Union of India vs. Suvidhe Ltd. reported in (2016) 11 SCC 808 as
well as the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs
(Import), Rigad vs. Finacord Chemicals (P) Limited & Others ,
reported in (2015)15 SCC 4697.
15. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance
and Taxation Department submitted that the State has
challenged the revisional order, and as such, as the matter is
pending before this Court for which the question of payment of
any interest does not arise.
16. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing
on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on records.
For deciding the entitlement of the petitioner firm, this Court first
would like to deal with the batch of writ petitions filed by the
Assessing Officer, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes,
Tinsukia. The batch of writ petitions filed by the Assistant
Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia challenges the common
revisional orders dated 26.02.2020 passed in respect to the Act
of 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 primarily on the
ground of non-compliance to the Circular No.15/2010. Taking
into account the importance of the said Circular, the contents of
the said Circular is reproduced herein under:-
Page No.# 15/25
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONGR OF TAXES: ASSAM: GUWAHATI
(Circular No. 15/2010)
No. CTS-81/2007/296 Dated Dispur, the 23rd August, 2010,
Sub: Inter-state sale made by the Bonded Warehouse.
It has come to notice that many bonded warehouses are showing
inter-state sale of liquor. It is apprehended that many such dealer may be
showing local sale as inter-state sale thereby evading sales tax 27% over
and above the excise duty payable. In such a scenario the State is losing
substantial amount of revenue.
It is, therefore, impressed upon all concerned to conduct thorough
VAT audit of such cases. The officers should not only rely upon 'C' forms
produced by the dealer. It is necessary to verify actual movement of
goods. In such cases, proof of receipt of payment of goods, proof of
despatch, proof of payment of freight to the transporter, proof of
movement through concerned Checkpost, relevant excise documents of
importing State and Assam may be insisted upon.
In cases where VAT audit has already been completed without
taking into consideration above-mentioned checks the Deputy
Commissioners of Taxes of Zones may take up suo-moto revision. The
Deputy Commissioner of Taxes of Zones shall collect list of bonded
warehouse zone-wise where VAT audit has been completed without such
detailed verification.
The Zonal Deputy Commissioners of Taxes will submit a detailed
Page No.# 16/25
report of audit assessments already done and under process within one
month without fail.
( Sanjay Lohiya ),
Commissioner of Taxes, Assam,
Guwahati.
17. From a perusal of the said Circular, it is seen that the said
Circular had been issued upon all concerned who have been
empowered to conduct thorough VAT audit of cases pertaining to
dealers who are involved in inter-State sale of liquor. It was
mentioned that the officer should not only rely upon 'C' form
produced by the dealer but it is also necessary for them to verify
actual movement of the goods. To ascertain the same, the
verification is required to be made by assertaining the proof of
receipt of the payment of goods, proof of despatch, proof of
payment of freight to the transporter, proof of movement
through concerned check posts, relevant excise documents of
importing State and Assam be also insisted upon. It is further
mentioned in the said Circular that in cases where VAT audit has
been completed without taking into consideration the
aforementioned checks, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes of
the Zones may take a suo-moto revision. Therefore, from a
perusal of the said Circular, it is seen that the same is in respect
to conducting VAT audit by the concerned Assessing Officers in
terms of Section 36 of the Act of 2003.
Page No.# 17/25
18. For understanding the said aspect of the matter, this Court
had put a specific query upon Mr. B Choudhury, the learned
Standing Counsel of the Finance and Taxation Department as to
whether the prescribed authority as mentioned in Section 36 of
the Act of 2003 would be the same authority who would be
exercising the powers under Section 82 of the Act of 2003. The
learned Standing Counsel with all fairness submitted that a
prescribed authority in terms with Section 36 of the Act of 2003
would be the authority who would carry out the audit
assessment proceedings in terms with the Act of 2003 whereas
the power conferred under Section 82 of the Act of 2003 is to be
exercised by the Revisional Authority. However, the learned
Standing Counsel submitted that if the VAT audit has been done
by following the procedure in terms with the Circular, the
Revisional Authority has to see as to whether the same has been
done in terms with the said Circular or if new materials are
brought on record during the revisional proceedings, the
Revisional Authority is also required to follow the same mandate
of the Circular.
19. This Court had duly perused the Circular No.15/2010 dated
23.08.2010. The said Circular is in respect to carrying out VAT
Audit Assessment and do not prescribe any instructions or
directions in so far as the Revisional Authority is concerned.
Page No.# 18/25
Under such circumstances, the question of challenging the
revisional order dated 26.02.2020 on the basis of the Circular
No.15/2020 is totally misconceived.
20. Be that as it may, this Court had perused the impugned
orders dated 26.02.2020. It is seen that the Revisional Authority
while deciding the said revision applications filed by the
petitioner firm had made necessary enquiries as is apparent from
a perusal of the contents of the revisional orders. The necessary
enquiries were made on the basis of the Excise Documents,
Certificates from officers of receiving States of Arunachal Pradesh
and Nagaland, proof of the existence of the purchasing dealers,
the facts of sales and facts of goods reaching other States
proved by excise documents. This Court further takes note of the
fact that though the instant writ petition has been filed
challenging the revisional orders dated 26.02.2020, but there is
no material brought on record to the effect that any enquiry was
made by the Taxation Department of the Government of Assam
pertaining to the factual determination so arrived at by the
Revisional Authority in the impugned orders dated 26.02.2020
and such enquiry proved otherwise. There is nothing on record
to show that the impugned orders dated 26.02.2020 are result of
fraud or is on account of collusion. This Court has also duly taken
note of the impugned orders dated 26.02.2020 and there is
Page No.# 19/25
nothing to show that the impugned orders suffers from any
perversity. Under such circumstances, the question of issuance of
a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned orders
dated 26.02.2020 do not arise.
21. Accordingly, this Court therefore finds no merits in the
instant batch of writ petitions so filed by the Assistant
Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia challenging the impugned
orders dated 26.02.2020 passed in respect to the Act of 2003
and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for which the same stands
dismissed.
22. In the backdrop of the above decision rendered, the
question arises as to whether the petitioner firm is entitled to the
relief so sought for in WP(C) No.4240/2022. This Court has duly
taken note of that the deposits so made by the petitioner firm for
admission of the revision petitions are nothing but pre-deposit
for availing the right of revision. Under such circumstances, when
by the order dated 26.02.2020, the Revisional Authority had
allowed those revision petitions, the petitioner is entitled to the
refund of the said amounts to which the petitioner had deposited
as a pre-deposit in view of the well settled principles that a pre-
deposit cannot be equated to payment of duty. Be that as it may,
this Court cannot also be unmindful of the fact that the orders
dated 26.02.2020 had dealt with the pre-deposit amount. It was
Page No.# 20/25
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner firm that the
entire amount of Rs.6,36,47,442/- is the amount which was
deposited as pre-deposit in relation to the various assessment
years. The operative part of the order dated 26.02.2020 passed
in relation to Section 9 (2) of the Central sales Tax Act, 1956 is
reproduced herein under to appreciate the directions passed by
the Revisional Authority:-
"It has been claimed that the dealer has deposited Rs.6,36,47,442/-
on different dates against the liability raised under the AVAT Act,
2003. The credit for the said amount, after looking in to all the
challans, will be allowed during fresh assessments of the
assessment orders under said Act. Since a portion of the tax levied
under the AVAT Act, 2003 has been shifted to the Central Sales Tax
Act, 1956, the amount deposited under the AVAT Act, 2003 may be
adjusted against the tax liability raised under the CST Act, 1956.
The amount of excess deposited VAT in comparison to due taxes,
will be first adjusted against the amounts of tax become due under
the CST Act, 1956 and the balance will be refunded to the dealer as
per the provisions of law. The said adjustments, for the purpose of
calculation of interest, will be made on the date of payment by the
petitioner.
In view of the above, the assessment orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, VAT Audit Cell, Guwahati for the
'periods 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 under
the Central Sales. Tax Act, 1956 have been set aside. The dealer will
Page No.# 21/25
submit the original copies of 9 (nine) 'C' forms as directed above
before the Assessing Officer. The jurisdictional Superintendent of
Taxes, Tinsukia is directed to pass fresh assessment orders for the
aforesaid four periods within 30 days of receiving of this order in
view of the observations and directions mentioned above."
23. The operative portion of the revisional order dated
26.02.2020 in relation to the Act of 2003 is reproduced herein
below:-
"It has been claimed that the dealer has deposited Rs. 6,36,47,442/-
on different dates against the liability raised under the Assam Value
Added Tax Act, 2003. The credit for the said amount after verifying
all the challans will be allowed during fresh assessments. Since a
portion of the tax levied under the AVAT Act, 2003 has been shifted
to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the amount deposited under the
AVAT Act, 2003 may be adjusted against the tax liability raised
under the CST Act, 1956. The amount of excess deposited VAT in
comparison to due taxes will be first adjusted against the amounts
of tax become due under the CST Act, 1956 and the balance will be
refunded to the dealer as per the provisions of law. The said
adjustments for the purpose of calculation of interest will be made
on the date of payment by the petitioner.
I hereby set aside the impugned assessment orders for the periods
2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009-passed by the
Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, VAT Audit Cell, Guwahati under
the AVAT Act, 2003 and direct the jurisdictional assessing officer to
Page No.# 22/25
reframe fresh assessment orders within 30 days of receiving the
order in the light of the observations made here in above.
Inform all concerned."
24. From the operative portion of the orders dated 26.02.2020
as quoted above, it would transpire that the Revisional Authority
had directed that fresh assessment orders were to be passed
taking into consideration the various details stated therein and
thereafter to refund the balance amounts after making necessary
adjustments. It was further directed that the said fresh
assessment orders were to be passed within 30 days after
receipt of the said orders. The materials on record do not reflect
when the orders dated 26.02.2020 were received by the
respondent No.5. However, it is seen from the records that on
07.04.2021, the revisional orders dated 26.02.2020 were served
upon the respondent No.5 by the petitioner firm and as such this
Court is of the opinion that the reckoning of the 30 days for
passing the fresh assessments would start from 07.04.2021 and
fresh assessment orders were to be passed on or before
07.05.2021.
25. The directions passed by the Revisional Authority dated
26.02.2020 were specific upon the respondent No.5 which was
not complied with. In that process, the Respondent Authorities
continued to withhold the amounts to which the petitioner firm
Page No.# 23/25
would have been entitled to if in the fresh assessment orders it
was found that the petitioner firm was entitled to the refund. The
non-compliance to the directions to pass fresh assessment orders
without there being a stay of the revisional orders dated
26.02.2020 goes contrary to the mandate of the Act of 2003 and
further had led to depriving the due benefits to the petitioner
firm without reasonable cause. Under such circumstances, this
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner firm would be entitled
to interest w.e.f. 08.05.2021 if upon passing of fresh assessment
orders, it is found that any amount is to be refunded to the
petitioner firm.
26. This Court though noticed that in the cases before the
Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the
petitioner firm interest was awarded to the tune of 13% to 15%
per annum. However, in the instant case, in view of the orders
dated 26.02.2020 wherein the Revisional Authority observed that
the amounts be adjusted against dues and then refunded, this
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner firm would be entitled
to the simple interest @ 9% per annum which is the statutory
interest in terms with Section 52 of the Act of 2003.
27. Accordingly, the writ petitions stands disposed of with the
following observations and directions:-
Page No.# 24/25
(i) The impugned orders dated 26.02.2020 challenged in
the batch of writ petitions filed by the Assistant
Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia being WP(C)
No.4463/2024; WP(C) No.4465/2024; WP(C)
No.5968/2024; WP(C) No.5969/2024; WP(C)
No.5970/2024; WP(C) No.6002/2024; WP(C) No.6003/2024
and WP(C) No.6018/2024 are not interfered with. The
batch of writ petitions stands dismissed.
(ii) The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia is
directed to pass fresh assessment orders at the earliest and
not later than 6 (six) weeks from the date of the instant
judgment.
(iii) Upon completion of the said assessment proceedings in
terms with the revisional orders dated 26.02.2020, the
petitioner, if found entitled to any amount, the same be
disbursed at the earliest and not later than 4 (four) weeks
from the date of passing the fresh assessment orders.
(iv) The said refunds shall carry interest @ of 9% per
annum from 08.05.2021 till the date of actual payment.
(v) The show cause notice dated 18.11.2021 is also set
aside and quashed.
(vi) The writ petition being WP(C) No.4240/2022 is allowed
Page No.# 25/25
in terms with the observations made herein above.
(vii) There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
