M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE short question raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') could have validly exercised its jurisdiction while deciding the rectification application filed under Section 21A(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, 'the 1948 Act'). The petitioner, Urea Casale S.A. is a company having its head office in Switzerland, project office in Mumbai and site office in the premises of National Fertilizers Limited, Nangal. The petitioner which is a specialized company takes contracts for supply of machinery and equipments for Urea Plants as also provides associated services such as civil and structural work, construction of Frilling Tower, erection, testing and commissioning of Urea Plants, has raised the aforementioned issue by challenging order dated 21.3.2007 (P -11), passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal initially vide its order dated 8.12.2005 (P -7) had granted relief to the petitioner. However, on rectification application filed by the respondent State, the order dated 8.12.2005 (P -7) was rectified on 21.3.2007 (P -11).
(2.) FACTS in brief are that the petitioner was registered as a dealer under the provisions of the 1948 Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the 1956 Act') and was being assessed by the Excise and Taxation Officer -cum -Assessing Authority, Ropar -respondent No. 2. On 22.3.2002, assessment was framed by the Assessing Authority in respect of assessment year 2000 -2001 and found that the petitioner was entitled for refund of Rs. 15,27,805/ -. The refund was on account of tax deducted at source by the National Fertilizers Limited, a Government company and deposited in Treasury by it. Since refund was not made in terms of order dated 22.3.2002, the assessee filed an application dated 17.3.2003 for refund of the amount. On 30.4.2003, Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ropar -respondent No. 3 sent a letter to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner seeking permission to keep the refund due to the petitioner pending till the assessment in the case of sub -contractor i.e. Facts Engineers and Design Organisation (FEDO), a Government of India undertaking is completed. On 26.9.2003 and 23.3.2004, reminders for refund were sent by the petitioner Company. On scrutiny it was found that order dated 22.3.2002, passed by the Assessing Authority suffered from irregularities/improprieties. Accordingly in exercise of powers under Section 21(1) of the 1948 Act suo moto proceedings were initiated and after issuance of notice dated 3.2.2004 (P -4), Revisional Authority passed an order dated 28.6.2004 and revised the order of the Assessing Authority raising a demand of Rs. 29,44,087/ - against the assessee -petitioner (P -5).
(3.) THE assessee -petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 21(3) of the 1948 Act before the Tribunal (P -6) challenging order dated 28.6.2004 (P -5) passed by respondent No. 2, which was allowed vide order dated 8.12.2005 (P -7) by observing that the alleged transactions were not local sales within the Punjab State as alleged by the Revisional Authority. On 18.4.2006, the petitioner again made an application for refund of the amount of Rs. 15,27,805/ -, however, needful has not been done. In the meanwhile, on 22.3.2006, the State of Punjab made a reference application before the Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay. On 22.8.2006, the aforementioned reference application was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal with liberty to the State of Punjab to file a afresh one in accordance with law, inasmuch as, no objection was raised by the counsel for the assessee -petitioner (P -8).;