IMPORTANT POINT
Pre-deposits for revision petitions are not equivalent to duty payments; failure to comply with revisional orders entitles the petitioner to a refund with interest.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

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.

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:-

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.

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 fir