9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (7) TMI 622 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Withholding of refund under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. 2. Application of Section 44 of the Act for withholding the refund. 3. Grounds for withholding the refund. 4. Legal precedent regarding withholding refunds under similar provisions. Issue 1: Withholding of refund under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 The petitioner, a nationalized insurance company, sought a refund under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The Assessing Authority initially withheld a significant portion of the refund amount, citing powers under Section 44 of the Act. The petitioner approached the court seeking the issuance of the withheld refund. Issue 2: Application of Section 44 of the Act for withholding the refund Section 44 of the Act allows the Assessing Authority to withhold a refund if it is likely to adversely affect the recovery, especially when appeals or further proceedings are pending. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, exercised powers under this section to withhold a substantial part of the refund due to the petitioner. Issue 3: Grounds for withholding the refund The petitioner argued that the impugned order withholding the refund lacked proper reasoning and application of mind. The court observed that simply the pendency of review applications by the Revenue was insufficient grounds to withhold the refund. It was noted that the petitioner being a Government company, the recovery of any potential future demand should not be adversely affected by the refund issuance. Issue 4: Legal precedent regarding withholding refunds under similar provisions The court referred to previous judgments under similar provisions in the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the mere pendency of proceedings challenging the assessment order should not be a reason to withhold a refund. The court held that no valid grounds were presented to justify withholding the refund in this case, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and directing the respondents to issue the refund promptly along with any statutory interest. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to release the withheld refund amount to the petitioner.
|
