2015 (9) TMI 43 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of refund claim Filing of W form manually Vide impugned order first respondent had rejected claim for refund made by petitioner by filing form W manually Whether impugned order rejecting claim for refund was justified in law Held that - respondents pointed out that Circular bearing No.22/2011 makes it clear that refund claims filed manually on or after 1.1.2012 would not be processed he is not in position to show that such ban is supported by Rule or Regulation Clear that Circular cannot abridge or overrule provisions of Rule 11(2) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules 2007 Court finds it appropriate to set aside impugned order of first respondent and is directed to consider form W refund claim filed by petitioner manually and pass appropriate orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim filed manually, validity of Circular prohibiting manual filing after a certain date, interpretation of Rule 11(2) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their refund claim filed manually, arguing that the rejection was arbitrary and illegal as there was no Rule or Regulation prohibiting manual filing of the claim. The petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned order and a direction for the first respondent to consider the manual filing and pass appropriate orders within a specified period. The Court noted that the Circular issued by the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, stated that refund claims filed manually after a certain date would not be processed. However, the Court found that the Circular could not override Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the first respondent to consider the manual filing of the refund claim and pass appropriate orders expeditiously and in accordance with the law.

The main contention revolved around the absence of any Rule or Regulation prohibiting manual filing of the refund claim, leading to the challenge of the rejection of the petitioner's claim. The Court emphasized that the Circular issued by the Commissioner's office could not abridge or overrule the provisions of Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. This decision highlights the importance of adherence to statutory rules and regulations governing the filing and processing of refund claims, ensuring that administrative directives do not contravene established legal provisions.

The judgment underscores the significance of upholding the statutory framework, particularly Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, in matters concerning the processing of refund claims. By setting aside the impugned order and directing the first respondent to consider the manual filing of the refund claim, the Court reaffirmed the primacy of legal provisions over administrative directives. This ruling serves as a reminder of the need for administrative actions to align with and not contradict the established legal framework to ensure fairness and adherence to the rule of law in the adjudication of claims and disputes related to taxation matters.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the manual filing of refund claims in the context of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. By invalidating the Circular that prohibited manual filing after a specified date and directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's manual filing, the Court upholds the rule of law and emphasizes the supremacy of statutory provisions in governing tax-related matters. This decision sets a precedent for ensuring the consistency and legality of administrative actions concerning tax refunds, thereby promoting transparency and adherence to established legal norms in the realm of taxation.