Valvoline Cummins Private Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Sanjay Karol, CJ

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records

and proceedings of the case, and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereto to quash, delete and/or set aside impugned order dated

31.07.2017 to the extent it is against petitioner and subject matter of present writ application and/or;

(ii) Issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents that excess Entry Tax paid by the petitioners at the insistence of the department, be

adjusted against alleged short payment of VAT liability, alternatively be refunded to the petitioner as the respondents have themselves admitted excess

payment of Entry Tax.

(iii) Issuance of a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction that no coercive steps for

recovery of the amount in dispute shall be undertaken pending disposal of present writ application and/or IA Application in present Writ Application

against impugned order dated 31.7.2017 which has given rise to the present tax demand which department seeks to recover by taking recourse to

coercive measures, and/or;

(iv) Issuance of writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to desist from enforcing and/or acting in

furtherance to the said impugned order dated 31.7.2017 pending disposal of present writ application and/or IA Application in present Writ Application

filed against said order, and/or;

(v) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer aboveâ€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner does not intend to press the present petition for the reason that he wants to approach the

authorities for venting out his grievances. In so far as the issue of deposit of outstanding amount of tax or dues are concerned, he wants to go for

settlement in terms of the Bihar Settlement of Taxation Disputes Act, 2019. Also, in that regard, he shall file an application within a period of two

weeks and comply with the said provisions/scheme/rules. If the petitioner fails to do so, it would be open for the Department to recover the amount,

impugned in the instant writ petition, so raised vide Annexure-P/1 series.

Petitioner is permitted to take recourse to such remedies.

In so far as the issue of refund of the excess amount so deposited is concerned, which pertains to the years 2010-2011, learned counsel states that

the petitioner shall represent to the authorities for refund thereof.

Shri Vikash Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection to the same, save and except that both the

exercises should be carried out simultaneously and not dependent upon each other, to which learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. In fact,

he agrees for the same.

Statement accepted and taken on record.

This Court is hopeful that with the petitioner approaching the authority, the application for refund shall be considered and decided, strictly in

accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months. However, we clarify that the outcome of the said application shall

have no bearing whatsoever on the process to be initiated by the petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Settlement of Taxation Disputes Act,

2019. Still further, it is clarified that if the petitioner fails to take recourse to the remedies of settlement under the said statute, it shall be open for the

State/Authorities to recover the amount/dues in terms of Annexure-P/1 series.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.