M/S. Jai Gopal Dhal And Brothers,Ganjam vs. The Sales Tax Officer,Ganjam-I

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jai Gopal Dhal and Brothers, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The petition concerned a pending refund application for excess tax paid by a works contractor. The petitioner's counsel submitted a circular dated September 20, 2017, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Odisha, which addressed the issue of refunds for works contractors without insisting on a limitation period. The petitioner indicated that they would not press for the reliefs sought in the petition if their refund application was considered by the Commissioner in a time-bound manner as per this circular.

Held

The Court directed that the petitioner would submit an affidavit in terms of the circular dated September 20, 2017, enclosing the relevant TDS certificate, to the Assessing Authority not later than March 1, 2023. Upon receiving the application, the Assessing Authority was directed to proceed in accordance with the law. After hearing the petitioner, the Assessing Authority is to pass an appropriate reasoned order within a period of four months thereafter. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the matter. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's pending refund application for excess tax paid as a works contractor should be considered by the Commissioner without insisting on a limitation period, in light of the circular dated September 20, 2017? The petitioner argued that the circular dated September 20, 2017, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Odisha, provides a mechanism for refund of excess tax paid by works contractors without the strict application of a limitation period. The petitioner stated that they would not press for the reliefs sought in the writ petition if the Commissioner considered their pending refund application in a time-bound manner as per this circular. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.