The court held that the writ petition for refund of tax is maintainable as there is a statutory provision for refund of the tax and the petitioner is seeking to enforce the obligation cast on the State under the provisions of the Act for grant of refund.

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 15,70,117 being the amount refundable for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1989-90 pursuant to the order of the respondent dated 3/03/1990 and 16/08/1991 respectively with interest, under section 33-E of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act" ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a dealer under the APGST Act. It is stated that for the year 1984-85, a sum of Rs. 14,46,251 became refundable to the petitioner by virtue of the order of assessment dated 3/03/1990 and for the year 1989-90, a sum of Rs. 2,41,705 became refundable in view of the order of assessment dated 16/08/1991. In so far as the assessment year 1984-85 is concerned, the petitioner filed an application on 21/03/1990, for refund of the amount due to it. It is stated by the respondent that the amount due for the years 1985-86 and 1988-89 amounting to Rs. 75,437 was adjusted. The petitioner says that by virtue of the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for the year 1981-82, the petitioner has to pay a further sum of Rs. 42,402. Thus, the refundable amount comes to Rs. 13,28,412. For the said two years, the amount refundable, according to the petitioner, is Rs. 15,70,117.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the assessment for the year 1981-82 was revised on 25/08/1992, pursuant to which a sum of Rs. 3,47,750 has become due by the petitioner. It is further stated that the assessment for the year 1990-91 is pending and the assessment for the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 have to be revised as per the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and that the business was closed with effect from October, 1992. It is added that the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Secunderabad Division by his proceedings No. R2/1600/88 dated 29/08/1992, approved withholding of the refund of the said amount under section 33-C of the Act and it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

( 4 ) SRI P. Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the respondent has not refunded the amount due to the petitioner inspite of filing of application as well as sending of notice through advocate in June, 1992. He, therefore, prays that the amount refundable to the petitioner may be directed to be refunded by the respondent.

( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on the other hand, contends that the writ petition for refund of the amount is not maintainable, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the amount now claimed as refund, if agreed to, would result in unjust enrichment of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.

( 6 ) THE short question that falls for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim refund of the amount, which is the subject-matter of the writ petition.

( 7 ) BEFORE we proceed to answer this question, it would be useful to refer to the decision relied upon by the learned Government Pleader in Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1965] 16 STC 398 (SC ). In that case, the appellant paid certain tax under the Indore Industrial Tax Act, 1927, though that amount was not payable by the appellant. On appeal, the petitioner/appellant succeeded. The assessing authority granted refund of tax for the period subsequent to 26/01/1950 but declined to refund the amount, which had been realised up to 26/01/1950. The petitioner moved the High Court for refund of that amount. On the ground that the amount was illegally collected by the State. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petition under article 226 of the Constitution solely for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money alleged to h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document