Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Anand Kumar Modi Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and ors.

Anand Kumar Modi vs Central Coalfields Limited and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Aug 16, 2000
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/128026

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.W.J.C. No. 728 of 2000 (R)
Subject
;Sales Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Sale Tax - Refund of excess deposit--Entitlement of--Amount of sale tax was realised at the rate of 8% per annum--1% additional tax--Whereas realisation of sale tax could only be made up to the extent of 4% per annum--Held, since the petition has deposited sale tax more than the amount due--Hence, excess deposit lia...

Key legal issue
;Sales Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anand Kumar Modi

Respondent

Central Coalfields Limited and ors.

Excerpt

sale tax - refund of excess deposit--entitlement of--amount of sale tax was realised at the rate of 8% per annum--1% additional tax--whereas realisation of sale tax could only be made up to the extent of 4% per annum--held, since the petition has deposited sale tax more than the amount due--hence, excess deposit liable to be refunded to petitioner. - - 3. from the materials on record as well as the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the central coalfields limited-respondent nos......that such amount can only be refunded to the authority of the central coalfields limited, because it was deposited through them. there is no denial either on behalf of the state government or on behalf of the central coalfields limited that the amount in question was deposited by the petitioner with the central coalfields limited. learned counsel appearing for the central coalfields limited also accepted that the moment such amount is received back from the state government, steps will be taken to refund the same to the petitioner.5. we, therefore, having regard to the stand taken by the parties aforesaid direct the respondent no. 6 (state of bihar through commissioner of commercial taxes, patna) to refund the excess amount so collected to the central coalfields limited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. we also direct the respondent no. 3 (the director, finance, central coalfields limited, ranchi) and respondent no. 4 (general manager (sales), sales & marketing department, central coalfields limited, ranchi) to refund such amount so returned by the state government to the writ petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of its receipt from the state government.6. with the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.7. let a copy of this order be made available to learned government advocate.

Full Judgment

N. Pandey and A.K. Prasad, JJ.

1. This Writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to refund a sum of Rs. 1,42,960/- with interest from the date of realisation of the amount till the data of refund.

2. It is stated that this Court by a judgment in the case of Chandrama Coal Products and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1993 (3) PLJR 706 and analogous cases has already declared the Notification bearing S.O. No. 3 dated 3.1.1998 as illegal and arbitrary. By the above Notification, rate of Sales tax was fixed at the rate of 8% on the sale and purchase of 'Slurry' and 'Sludge'. It was held that on such commodity, sales tax cannot be realised in excess of 4%. The claim is since admittedly the petitioner had deposited excess amount in terms of the aforesaid Notification, therefore, now entitled for refund.

3. From the materials on record as well as the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the Central Coalfields Limited-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the respondent No. 6-State of Bihar through Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna, there appears to be no dispute that the amount of sales tax was realised at the rate of 8% per annum + 1% additional tax, whereas as per the decision of this Court, realisation of sales tax can only be made up to the extent of 4% per annum.

4. On behalf of the State Government, it was stated that such amount can only be refunded to the authority of the Central Coalfields Limited, because it was deposited through them. There is no denial either on behalf of the State Government or on behalf of the Central Coalfields Limited that the amount in question was deposited by the petitioner with the Central Coalfields Limited. Learned Counsel appearing for the Central Coalfields Limited also accepted that the moment such amount is received back from the State Government, steps will be taken to refund the same to the petitioner.

5. We, therefore, having regard to the stand taken by the parties aforesaid direct the respondent No. 6 (State of Bihar through Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Patna) to refund the excess amount so collected to the Central Coalfields Limited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We also direct the respondent No. 3 (the Director, Finance, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi) and respondent No. 4 (General Manager (Sales), Sales & Marketing Department, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi) to refund such amount so returned by the State Government to the Writ petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of its receipt from the State Government.

6. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ petition is disposed of.

7. Let a copy of this order be made available to learned Government Advocate.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial