Skip to main content

Assessee Entitled To Tax Refund On Subsequent Reduction Of Sale Price On Price Variation

The Supreme Court has clarified in M/s. Universal Cylinders Limited vs The Commercial Taxes Officer, that a sales tax assessee is entitled to get the refund of excess tax paid on provisional sale price if the price gets reduced subsequently on price variation. The judgment authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, on sharing bench with Justice Madan.B Lokur, was delivered in an appeal from the Rajasthan High Court.

The appellant was a manufacturer and supplier of LPG Cylinders to Government-owned companies like IOCL, BPCL etc. The prices for LPG cylinders are fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as per its pricing policy. The prices are fixed for a period at a later point of time.
Pending the finalization of prices for the period 2000-01, the appellant supplied cylinders to IOCL at a provisional rate of Rs.682/- per cylinder. Sales tax on this price was collected by the appellant and remitted to the Department. Later, the Ministry finalized the price for the period as Rs.645/- per cylinder, which is lesser than the provisional price fixed in the agreement between appellant and IOCL.

Therefore, oil company deducted/adjusted the excess payment of Rs.37/  and proportionate sales tax thereon from the payments due to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant approached the department for refund of excess tax paid on the provisional price of Rs.682/- per cylinder. The Department rejected refund on the ground that there is no provision under the Act for reducing or refunding the amount of tax once the amount of tax has been paid. It was also observed that the arrangement of the assessee with the oil companies was in the nature of a private agreement and the sales tax department had nothing to do with this. The High Court also confirmed the rejection order, resulting in the matter coming before the Supreme Court.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/assessee-entitled-tax-refund-subsequent-reduction-sale-price-price-variation-holds-sc-read-judgment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more