J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) THESE three special appeals are directed against order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.5.2015.
(2.) THE brief controversy rests on refund of Value Added Tax (VAT) which was charged by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) on Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF), which was supplied/sold to the respondent -assessee amounting to Rs. 85,20,747/ - for the period 6.1.2007 -31.3.2007 relevant to the assessment year 2006 -07, Rs. 6,11,37,585/ - for the assessment year 2007 -08 and Rs. 4,12,30,035/ -for the assessment year 2008 -09. It was claimed by the respondent -assessee that VAT was wrongly collected by the IOCL Jaipur from the respondent -assessee who is a limited company, whereas in view of the exemption notifications issued by the State Government from time to time, the respondent -company having established a 'HUB' at the Sanganer Airport, Jaipur on 5.1.2007 on the desire of State of Rajasthan to increase inflow of tourists, in order to boost tourism, industrial activities and attract investment in the State, the State of Rajasthan u/sec. 4 and 8 of the Rajasthan VAT Act, issued a notification which provided exemption from VAT on sale of ATF to any airline establishing a 'HUB' in the State of Rajasthan, and such notification having come to the knowledge of respondent -assessee, after sometime it made a request to the Assessing Officer for refund of the aforesaid amounts. It is an admitted case that VAT was collected from the respondent -assessee by IOCL @ 28%. It is also admitted that the respondent -assessee was granted registration certificate by the Revenue which, inter alia, included : aerated water, cookies, cashew nuts, juices, sandwiches, health bar, confectionery, tea and coffee for the sale/supply to the customers while on board in the aircraft. However, objection of the appellants was that in the registration the assessee did not include ATF (fuel) and thus initially the claim of the assessee was denied not only on account of this fact but also on account of the fact that the assessee was unable to prove the exact date of establishment of 'HUB' as also no evidence was led on record about VAT having been paid by the assessee or collected by IOCL. It was claimed that the assessee started using Sanganer Airport on and from 5.1.2007 when the 'HUB' became operational for parking aircrafts at night with the result that its flights started originating from Jaipur. It also established its own maintenance and engineering team for repair and maintenance of aircrafts stationed at Jaipur.
(3.) IT would be appropriate to observe that on an application moved earlier for refund of VAT of the amounts noted hereinbefore, the Assessing Officer passed orders on 24.2.2010 by which its applications for refund of VAT were rejected. The respondent -assessee against rejection of the claim of refund vide orders dated 24.2.2010 approached this court by filing three writ petitions bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7128/2010, 7129/2010 and 7130/2010, inter alia, praying that the orders passed on 24.2.2010 rejecting the application was unjust and bad in law and be quashed and set aside and a mandamus be issued to the Commercial Taxes Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan to refund, to the petitioner -company, unduly collected amount of VAT of the amount referred hereinbefore. The learned Single Judge in its order dated 28.2.2013 decided the three writ petitions by holding that the claim of respondent -assessee is just and proper and despite objection of the counsel for the Revenue that alternative remedy was available to the respondent -assessee, the learned Single Judge had gone into the issue at length and after analysing the material on record came to the conclusion that the dispute lies in a narrow compass and no disputed question of fact was found and only legal issues were involved, and accordingly held in favour of the respondent -assessee by holding that the assessee is entitled for refund of the VAT unduly collected by the IOCL, however, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the claim of the petitioner -company for refund afresh only on limited two issues examining the date of establishment of 'HUB' as also the rate of interest. Admittedly, this judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.2.2013 was not challenged by the Revenue and has attained finality.;