- (1.) THE writ petition was preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs : "For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to refund the amount of sales tax paid by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 9,96,87,607/ - along with statutory interest thereupon from the date of realization till the date of payment which has been paid by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Hon ble Court dated 12.4.2001 passed in CWJC No. 1426 of 2001 which was subsequently modified by order dated 3.5.2001 and the prayer for refund is also pursuant to, the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 25.8.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. . 2188/2002 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to exemption in terms of exemption certificate issued by the Joint Commissioner. For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 16.9.2004 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 4) by which he has directed the .petitioner to make application for refund in the statutory form namely Form XX under Sec. 42 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 read with Rule 34 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 which in fact relates to refund arising out of regular assessment proceedings and not otherwise. For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 27.9.2004 by which the Head (Industrial Taxation Sales) of the petitioner Company has been directed to be personally present before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur under Sec.10 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 in relation to refund of sales tax."
(2.) THE case was taken up on 4th October, 2004. On the said date, while the counsel for the State was allowed time to file counter affidavit, the following interim order was passed : "In the meantime, the petitioner, if appears through its representative, pursuant to notice contained in letter No. 612 dated 27th September, 2004, the respondents, without insisting on production of Form XX, will decide the question of refund, on merit, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court." In spite of such order, no specific decision was taken nor any order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur. For the said reason, a suo motu contempt proceeding has been initiated against Dr. K.C. Jha, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, Division, Jamshedpur. Later on, the said Officer appeared and informed that the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur is the competent authority, who can decide the issue. During the pendency of the writ petition, in the light of the interim order of this Court, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur decided the claim of refund and statutory interest as was made by the petitioner. The said Officer by order of refund dated 4th January, 2005 (Annexure A to the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of 3rd respondent), passed the following order : "In the circumstances as discussed above it appears that the total refund being claimed amounting to Rs. 9,96,87,607.00 is fully covered by the total excess payments amount to Rs. 9,97,71,515.87 paisa and hence the refund as claimed amounting to Rs. 9,96,87,607.00 is refundable to the dealer company. Prepare refund voucher accordingly. However, so far as the claim of statutory interest @ 9% amounting to Rs. 2,82,64,539,53 is concerned it will be dealt in separately later on."
(3.) DR . Debi Prasad Pal, senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tata Refractories Ltd. V/s. Sales Tax Officer, reported in 129 STC 506 and submitted that the petitioner is entitled for statutory interest in terms with the said decision apart from the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court as affirmed by the Supreme Court. However, on the other hand, according to counsel for the State, the decision in the case of Tata Refractories Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the case of petitioner.;