9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1248 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxReversal of input tax credit - TNVAT Act - Held that - It is clear that the petitioner s claim for refund was disbelieved and the claim stood rejected on factual grounds - The issue involves complicated and disputed questions of fact, and therefore, necessarily, the petitioner has to avail Appeal remedy available under the statute. This Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition against the impugned order, but inclined to direct the petitioner to avail the Appeal remedy - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to order passed under TNVAT Act and CST Act for the year 2006-07. Analysis: The petitioner, M/s. Gail India Private Limited, challenged the order passed by the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) for the year 2006-07. The petitioner had declared the total and taxable turnover for the year under the CST Act and was deemed to have been assessed as per the relevant sections of the TNVAT Act. It was discovered that the petitioner had reversed the credit of input tax in their returns for certain months, which the respondent considered as VAT amount not availed, leading to a notice proposing to revise the returns under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner's objection was rejected by the respondent after considering the petitioner's stand. The respondent, after hearing both parties, highlighted that a previous decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) was not entirely applicable to the current situation due to the omission of considering Section 41 of the TNVAT Act. The respondent disbelieved the petitioner's claim for a refund, rejecting it on factual grounds. The issue at hand involved complex and disputed factual matters, indicating that the petitioner should pursue the available appeal remedy under the statute rather than seeking relief through a Writ Petition. Therefore, the High Court of Madras, through the judgment delivered by T. S. Sivagnanam, J., declined to entertain the Writ Petition against the impugned order but directed the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy. The court disposed of the Writ Petition, instructing the petitioner to file an appeal against the order within 30 days, ensuring that the Appellate Authority would consider the appeal without being restricted by the limitation aspect. The judgment did not impose any costs on either party.
|
