Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1042 (PAT)

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar

2014-09-26

ANJANA MISHRA, I.A.ANSARI

body2014
ORDER : I. A. ANSARI, J. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned PAAG, appearing for the State respondents. 2. This writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arises out of the facts, which are not in dispute. 3. The petitioner paid, under the scheme of Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Entry Tax Act, 1993’), a total sum of Rs. 62,74,87,667.00 as entry tax and, upon realization of the amount due under the Entry Tax Act, 1993, a sum of Rs. 1,41,72,815.44 paise was found to have been paid by the petitioner in excess of its liability under the Entry Tax Act, 1993. It is not in dispute that this amount of Rs. 1,41,72,815.44 paise is required to be refunded to the petitioner. 4. What has, now, happened is that the petitioner, under the impugned demand notice, dated 31.07.2014, contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, has been assessed, under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Value Added Tax Act’), as liable to pay Rs. 30,28,16,802.85 paise and, upon adjustment of the Value Added Tax, which had already been paid by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 1,90,77,873.29 paise, according to the respondents, remains to be paid, as Value Added Tax, under the Value Added Tax Act. 5. Claiming payment of the sum of Rs. 1,90,77,873.29 paise, Value Added Tax Act, the impugned demand notice, dated 31.07.2014, has been raised. The fact that the petitioner is entitled to receive refund of Rs. 1,41,72,815.44 paise, which the petitioner had paid in excess, under the Extry Tax Act, 1993, is, as already indicated above, not in dispute. 6. As the refund of a sum of Rs. 1,41,72,815.44 paise has not taken place and, in the meanwhile, the demand of Rs. 1,90,77,873.29 paise has been raised by the impugned demand notice, dated 31.07.2014, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking, with the help of the present writ petition, issuance of appropriate directions. 7. Having perused the material on record including the impugned demand notice, dated 31.07.2014, and having heard learned counsel for the parties appearing before us, we are of the view that since the sum of Rs. 7. Having perused the material on record including the impugned demand notice, dated 31.07.2014, and having heard learned counsel for the parties appearing before us, we are of the view that since the sum of Rs. 1,41,72,815.44 paise is, admittedly, required to be refunded to the petitioner, the same ought to be refunded, at the earliest, to the petitioner and, within two weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall, pursuant to the impugned demand notice, dated 31.07.2014, aforementioned, deposit the said refunded amount of Rs. 1,41,72,815.44 paise and, within further two weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall deposit, pursuant to the impugned demand notice, dated 31.07.2014, the remaining balance sum of Rs. 49,05,058.00. We order accordingly. 8. We also make it clear that the payment, which would be made by the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court of the said sum of Rs. 1,90,77,873.29 paise, shall be subject to the decision, which may be arrived at, if the petitioner challenges the petitioner’s legal liability to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,90,77,873.29 paise and/or any part thereof. 9. In terms of the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. 10. No order as to cost.