2009 (11) TMI 847 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal challenging order under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, regarding refund claim and undue enrichment.

Summary:
The State of Punjab filed an appeal u/s 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against the order of the Value Added Tax Tribunal setting aside the appellate authority's order u/s 20(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The dealer-respondent claimed a refund of Rs. 5,13,708, contending it was within the exempted limit and tax was erroneously deposited. The Tribunal found that the dealer's sales rate remained constant, inclusive of tax, even during the period for which the refund was sought. The Tribunal concluded that the tax amounting to Rs. 5,13,708 could not be refunded due to unjust enrichment, as the tax was not actually collected from the customer but shown for calculation purposes. The court held that the findings of the Tribunal were based on facts, with no evidence of undue enrichment, and dismissed the appeal as not warranting admission.

In this case, the court addressed the issue of whether the dealer-respondent was entitled to a refund of Rs. 5,13,708 claimed to be erroneously deposited as tax within the exempted limit. The Tribunal found that the dealer's sales rate remained constant, inclusive of tax, even during the period for which the refund was sought. The court noted that the assessing officer and appellate authority had reviewed the books of account, with no evidence suggesting that the tax was actually collected from the customer. The court concluded that the findings of the Tribunal were factual and did not give rise to a substantive question of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The court also examined the concept of undue enrichment in the context of the dealer-respondent's refund claim. Despite the dealer's consistent sales rate inclusive of tax, the court found no evidence of actual tax collection from the customer. The court emphasized that the findings of the Tribunal were based on facts and did not support a claim of undue enrichment. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order, as it did not warrant admission based on the factual findings presented.