9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1269 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRefund of input tax credit - denial on the ground that Form W has been filed by the petitioner belatedly - Held that - it is not in dispute that the petitioner s turnover relates to export turnover and which is a zero rated sale and the petitioner has also filed Form I returns on monthly basis. Therefore, the mere delay in submission of Form W or submission in the manual Form alone cannot be a ground to refuse to look into the petitioner s application for refund - matter is remanded to the respondent and the respondent is directed to verify Form W as regards the admissibility and genuinity - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to order of assessment rejecting refund claim due to delayed filing of Form W under TNVAT Act for the year 2013-14. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act, challenged the assessment order rejecting the refund claim of Input-Tax Credit due to belated filing of Form W. The respondent contended that the manual filing after 180 days was not in compliance with Circular dated 20.11.2011. However, the Court noted the absence of a specific statutory provision prohibiting manual forms acceptance. The Court referred to a previous case where it was established that for zero-rated sales under Section 18 of TNVAT Act, timely claim submission in Form I returns was crucial. The Court emphasized the beneficial nature of Input Tax Credit provisions and the need for expeditious assessment to consider refund claims. This decision was later upheld in another case. In the present case, as the petitioner's turnover involved zero-rated export sales and regular filing of Form I returns, the delay in submitting Form W manually should not be a sole reason to reject the refund application. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the respondent for verification of Form W's admissibility and genuineness for appropriate orders. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
|
