Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Unilever India Exports ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 12 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 3963 of 2011
M/s. Unilever India Exports Limited (Earlier known as M/S. Indexport
Limited) a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of
Companies Act, 1956, represented through Sri Kedar Lele S/o. Mr.
Chandra Kant Lele, General Manager, East Region having its office at:
Brooke House, 9, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071.
..... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2.The Secretary-cum-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes having its
office at Project Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3.Joint Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur
Division, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Town: Jamshedpur, Dist: East
Singhbhum.
4.Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Singhbhum Circle, P.O. &
P.S.Bistupur, Town: Jamshedpur. ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Adv.
Ms. Aakansha Mittal, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I.
---------
13/12.07.2022 Reference may be made to the order dated 30th June, 2022 which
recapitulates the case of the parties.
"The matter relates to assessment year 2003-04. Learned Commercial Taxes
Tribunal has by the judgment dated 24th July, 2007 (Annexure-2)
categorically answered the question in favour of the assessee that for the
relevant period taxing of edible coconut oil with perfumed coconut oil @
12% is on a wrong premise. The turn over of the edible coconut oil deserves
to be accepted with tax @ 4%. The annual return of 2004-05 is enclosed to
reply dated 23rd November, 2011 to the counter affidavit which learned
counsel for the petitioner has referred to show that edible coconut oil was
sold @ 4% rate of tax whereas hair oil was sold @ 12% rate of tax.
2. Pursuant to the Tribunal's order excess demand notice to the tune of
Rs.56,98,952/- has been issued by the Department vide Annexure-3.
Petitioner applied for refund on 22nd June, 2010 (Annexure-4).
3. The respondents have in the first counter affidavit taken a plea of unjust
enrichment and in the second counter affidavit enclosed a chart at para-8
which relates to assessment year 2001-02 in which petitioner had sold
edible coconut oil @ 12 % tax.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had
sold edible coconut oil @ 12 % relating to the assessment year 2001-02, writ
petition tax No.3988 of 2011 filed on this same subject was withdrawn vide
order dated 30th October, 2018. However, the transactions which were made
for sale of the edible coconut oil relating to 2003-04 assessment year were @
4%. Till date the refund with statutory interest has not been allowed.
5. The respondent No.4, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes East
Singhbhum Circle shall appear on the next date along with the record of the
proceeding relating to the assessment year 2003-04.
6. List this case on 12th July, 2022."
2. Respondent No.4- Mr. Mithilesh Prasad-Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes, Singhbhum Circle, Jamshepdur is present with the
records.
3. Learned counsel for the State has on going through the
assessment order; revised assessment order; monthly returns; quarterly
returns; annual returns; the first demands notice and the excess demand
notice dated 23rd December, 2008 after the petitioners succeeded before
the Commercial Taxes Tribunal vide judgment dated 24th July, 2007
submitted that the records of the assessment proceedings and his returns
do make out a case of refund, since the learned tribunal has categorically
answered the question in favour of the assessee that for the relevant
period taxing edible coconut oil with perfumed coconut hair oil at 12%
rate of interest is on a wrong premise. Moreover excess demand notice
had also been issued pursuant to the reassessment order. Petitioner's
application for refund made by the petitioner on 22nd June, 2010 is also
not disputed as it is a matter of record. Therefore, learned counsel for the
respondent is not in a position to dispute the claim of the petitioner for
refund.
4. The relevant extracts of the original records containing the
original assessment order, revised assessment order, the excess demand
notice and the returns field by the petitioner be kept on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been made to suffer on account of in-action on the part of the
respondent-authorities till date. As such, he is entitled to statutory
interest in terms of Section 43 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 after six
months from the date of the application i.e. 22nd June 2010 since refund
has not been allowed within the said period.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Union of India through Director of
Income Tax Versus Tata Chemicals Limited, reported in (2014) 6 SCC
335 para 38.
7. On consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and the
undisputed facts placed from the original records of the
assessment/reassessment proceedings relating to year 2003-04 by the
respondent No.4- Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Singhbhum
Circle, Jamshepdur, it is beyond dispute that the petitioner has made out
a case of refund of the amount of Rs. 56,98,952.00/- relatable to the
assessment year 2003-04 vide revised excess demand notice dated 23rd
December, 2008. Therefore the admissible refund be paid along with
statutory interest in accordance with law within a period of six weeks.
8. The writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent
indicated herein above.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/Pramanik
