Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1393 - KERALA HIGH COURTJurisdiction - Authority being subordinate to the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, could not have modified the orders passed by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 94 of KVAT Act? - sale effected to an industrial unit within the SEZ - deemed exports or not - HELD THAT:- The sale by registered dealers like the appellants to units within the SEZ do not qualify to be deemed exports and instead their entitlement, for statutory benefits are governed by the provisions of Section 8 of the CST Act and Section 6 of the KVAT Act. Viewed in that manner, the conclusion as contained in impugned clarification will have to be sustained. Whether the appellants should refund the amounts already refunded to them on the strength of Annexure-I. Annexure-I was issued by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 94 of the KVAT Act? - HELD THAT:- That Annexure was modified by the Authority which came into existence only by the impugned proceedings. Therefore, until the impugned proceedings were issued, the department was bound by Annexure-I and it is on that basis that refunds were also allowed to the assessee. That apart, the Commissioner also has not issued any clarification that the impugned order would be retrospective as empowered under Section 94(2). While legality of the impugned order is upheld, the appellants shall not be liable to refund any amount already refunded to them on the strength of Annexure-I order dated 15.09.2007. Appeal disposed off.
|